1951-12-29

POSTAL SERVICE


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting both the privileges and the responsibilities of the members of this house. It is something which I think should be raised today, in view of the fact that we have reason I think to expect that we are within some measurable distance of the termination of this session.
This morning I received a postal package addressed to me at the House of Commons, and very clearly addressed and very properly packaged, which was postmarked "Vancouver, December IV." I recognize, and perhaps it will be understood by hon. members that I have as much reason as anyone in this house to recognize, the immensely heavy responsibilities of the postal department at this time of the year. I cannot however recall any Christmas or any time when there have been so many complaints from every part of the country in regard to the delay in the delivery of mail. This is something that affects the business of this house, that affects the business of this country. It has wide ramifications. I will simply give one personal experience which illustrates what happens in cases of this kind. I wrote a letter to a friend who was critically ill in a Toronto hospital. He died five days later. The letter had not been delivered and it was therefore returned to me. That merely serves to underline the possibilities that arise, from both the personal and the business point of view, where delays of that kind occur.
I can understand delays of one, two and three days perhaps, just because of the immense accumulation of mail; but surely between here and Toronto and here and Montreal it is not consistent with the place that the postal services have come to occupy in our whole economic and social structure that within these short distances there should be delays of a whole week and more in the delivery of letters. And most certainly no congestion can explain the delay of twelve days in the delivery of first-class mail or packaged mail from Vancouver to here.
I recognize-and as I say, I have reason to recognize perhaps as much as anyone here, next to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the members of the cabinet- what the real accumulation of mail is at this time of year, but I do think that with all this heavy pressure the Postmaster General (Mr. Rinfret) should assure us that, in the light of the experience of this year, adequate steps will be taken to ensure that next year, or on any intervening occasion when there is heavy pressure on the mail services, adequate provisions will be made for delivery within a reasonable time in relation to the circumstances.
I point out that not only may personal messages and very important personal communications be delayed, with very unhappy consequences in certain cases, but also that the business of this house is related to the delivery of the mail and that important business organizations all over this country depend upon some reasonable promptness of delivery. I am sure that none of this delay is the responsibility of the men themselves who deliver the mail. There is no more loyal and hard-working organization in this country. I am satisfied, however, that something has happened to affect the whole organization, because delays of this kind have become too frequent, not only in these recent weeks but for months past. This, calls for some reassurance to the house.


Mr. Bradette:: This is good!


Hon. Edouard Rinfret (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the opposition did not give me notice of his intention of raising this question. He did not bring to my attention the reference he has made to the mail he received.


George Alexander Drew: I only received it half an hour ago.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: But I wish to point out to the house that in all our advertising we gave notice to the public that we could not accept in the mail any first-class mail for delivery in time for Christmas if it was put in the mail after December 17.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interrupt, but I insist that the record be correct. This was not put in the mail after1
2512	HOUSE OF
Ministerial Statements
December 17. It was put in the mail in sufficient time to bear the Vancouver postmark of December 17.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I must reiterate my statement as to the advertising that was put in the papers. When we put that advertising in the papers we did not anticipate that there would be the large flow of mail that there has been this year-much more, in fact, than in any previous year. Nor did we anticipate that there would be the worst series of snowstorms we have had in many decades. All the delivery systems and distribution systems in all cities have been disrupted. We have tried in all ways imaginable to make deliveries, and made as many as four or five deliveries on the day before Christmas so that all things would arrive in time for Christmas.
Then, we employed more than 25,000 additional helpers for sorting and for letter carrying duties. And, sir, I do not think there is anything possible we could have done more than we have done.


Mr. Pouliot:: At last, Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and with the Postmaster General (Mr. Rinfret), too. I thank the leader of the opposition because he has supplied the government with the strongest possible argument for the construction of a new government building at the earliest possible date at Riviere du Loup.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege.
I should like to say that I referred in the house on Thursday last and again yesterday to a complaint under section 498A of the Criminal Code. I made this reference for the purpose of illustrating the use to which the section could be put, and the facts I gave were from my recollection of an informal conversation with the commissioner of the Combines Investigation Act in which he gave me general information about pending cases. Speaking from my recollection of this conversation, I indicated that the matter had been closed on the basis of no offence having been established. Since the house rose last night I checked with the commissioner and found that I was incorrect in stating that the case is closed. The complaint is still under investigation, and I wish to correct the record in that respect. I do not think I should say more since the case is still under inquiry.
And then, while I am on my feet, I think I should make reference to the fact that in
[Mr. Drew.!

response to a question by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) I stated that the case to which I have just referred was the only case in which section 498A of the Criminal Code had been invoked. However, the commissioner sent to my office a note indicating that in the recent glass prosecution in Ontario a charge under section 498A was referred to the grand jury, and that although the grand jury brought in a true bill and the parties pleaded guilty to the main charge under section 498, the grand jury did not think that the evidence submitted to it warranted their bringing in a bill on the charge under section 498A.



RIGHT HON. WINSTON CHURCHILL DETAILS OF VISIT TO CANADA IN JANUARY

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact
that government notices of motion come before the orders of the day will be called, and that on one of those government notices of motion there may be considerable debate, perhaps I might be permitted at this time to refer to the forthcoming visit to Canada of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
I have been in communication with Mr. Churchill from time to time about his proposed visit to Canada and the United States, and the dates were finally settled only late yesterday. They have already been announced in London. I hope that the further information that has come over the radio about the terrible storms along the coasts of England, and the delay occasioned to the Queen Mary will not require a change in the schedule that had been arranged for Mr. Churchill's visit. I might say there has been no information so far of any change being required.
As I indicated some time ago, Mr. Churchill did not wish to make more than one major speech while in Canada. It was suggested some time ago that the speech should be made at a state dinner in Ottawa, and should be broadcast. Mr. Churchill has accepted that suggestion.
The date which has now been fixed is Monday, January 14, and it is the intention of the government to have invitations sent to all members of both houses of parliament, including of course the lady members, although the dinner would otherwise be a dinner for men only, since Mr. Churchill is not being accompanied by Mrs. Churchill on this occasion.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding with
government notices of motion, does the house wish me to call the order for questions?


George Alexander Drew: Yes, I think they should be called.


Mr. Speaker:: Then, with the consent of the house, I shall do so.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Agreed.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Coyle:: 1.	Has any investigation been made into methods and means of preventing erosion on lake Erie by reason of the decay of the east pier at Port Bruce, Ontario?
2.	If not, will the government give consideration to taking steps designed to stop the effects of erosion and to remove the cause?



NEWFOUNDLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the
opposition asked me yesterday if any further information had been obtained about a certain flight of an R.C.A.F. plane from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Gander in November last. I told him I understood that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe), acting as Minister of National Defence at that time, had prepared a note which I had seen at the time. I said I would endeavour to secure it and communicate it to the house. It is in the following form:
In replying to the question asked by the leader of the opposition, regarding R.C.A.F. transport provided to assist the Newfoundland government, the Prime Minister on November 26 undertook to obtain further information which I am now in a position to give. As outlined by the Prime Minister, it is the general policy to be of service to provincial governments in instances of urgency and need where other means of transport are not available, but, in cases which would not normally fall under the heading of search and rescue operations, the provincial government concerned is normally asked to reimburse national defence out-of-pocket expenses incurred.
When this matter was brought to my attention on Thursday evening,-
That would be Thursday, November 22.
-it was not possible to communicate by telephone with either Premier Smallwood or the R.C.A.F. officer in command at St. John's. After reviewing the circumstances of the request and taking into consideration the assurances of the premier of Newfoundland that no civilian transport could be obtained, that this flight was urgent and that the flight involved transportation of a government official-not a politician-I felt that it might not be fair to throw upon a subordinate air force officer the responsibility for making what was essentially a ministerial decision, and I authorized the flight to be made on the basis of reimbursement in the usual manner of our out-of-pocket expenses.
Had it been possible to speak to the premier of Newfoundland, I would have ascertained precisely what the exact purpose of the flight was before making a decision.
Inquiries of the Ministry
I have since been advised the only passenger was one employee of the government who went to Gander and that no passenger arranged for by the Newfoundland government returned in the plane.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the
difficulty with which the Prime Minister would be confronted in dealing with a matter of that kind and of necessity accepting the explanation that was given, but in view of the event that was anticipated a few days later in Newfoundland I do suggest that further examination will indicate that this was a rescue operation of a kind not ordinarily included in the term "search and rescue operation".



STRATEGIC CHEMICALS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. McIlraiJh (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer a question which was asked yesterday by the leader of the opposition with regard to the alleged shipment of strategic chemicals to Hungary. The question was as follows:
I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) or to whoever can speak for him in this matter. There has been an extensive discussion in the press of the charge made by the commerce department of the United States that the Continental Pharma Company of Montreal has been secretly exporting strategic chemicals to communist Hungary. I should like to ask what information the government can give us about this matter and what steps have been taken, from the point of view of the Canadian government, to deal with this situation.
In answer may I say that officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce have , been in close touch with officials of the office of international trade of the United States department of commerce for some time in connection with this matter. The grounds for the proceedings by the United States authorities against A. E. Ratner Chemical Company of New York, Continental Pharma Company of Montreal, and the Continental Pharma Company of Brussels, involved one shipment of aluminum oxide, abrasive grade. This shipment was made direct from the United States to Belgium in May, 1949, and it is reported that it was forwarded from Belgium to Hungary.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police examined the books of the Continental Pharma Company in Montreal in May, 1950, and from the evidence available there apparently was no infraction of the Canadian export control regulations involved in this shipment of aluminum oxide from the United States to Hungary. Since that time the export operations of this company have been closely

Inquiries of the Ministry scrutinized by the Department of Trade and Commerce and we have every reason to believe that there has been no infraction of Canadian export control regulations.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, in relation to the answer that has been given, may I suggest that since these matters are largely the subject of regulation this would appear to be an appropriate time to make the suggestion that it would be in keeping with the thoughts of the people of Canada that steps be taken to prevent the delivery of any kind of strategic materials to those beyond the iron curtain. This type of trade is peculiarly repugnant to our people at this time and if we err in any way, it should be to err on the side of stopping all trade with communist-dominated countries which can in any way support their economy, let alone build u-: their defensive power.


George James McIlraith: I want to say that the regulations do not permit the export of strategic materials to iron curtain countries. I think that should be pointed out. It should be remembered that this phase of the legislation was discussed at some length when the export and import bill was before the house. I think it should also be recalled to the attention of the house that this alleged offence was not a shipment from Canada, but concerned a shipment of material from the United States. In addition it should also be pointed out that the offence was alleged to have occurred in May, 1949, and was investigated in early 1950. The operations of the company concerned have been under very close scrutiny ever since and there is no reason to suspect any breach of our regulations. There has been a great deal of care exercised.


George Alexander Drew: I think it is of sufficient importance, without debating the matter, to point out that no matter how any company may conform with our own regulations I am satisfied that the people of Canada feel sufficiently strongly about doing anything directly or indirectly which might assist our only possible enemies, that no device which may conform with our export laws but which results in the ultimate delivery to countries beyond the iron curtain should be permitted. When it is discovered I think every appropriate step possible should be taken to make sure that our regulations prevent indirect as well as direct delivery of substances of this kind.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think the house as a whole would wish to be assured that the government is in full sympathy with the thoughts expressed by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) with
[Mr. Mcllraith.l

respect to possible procurement from Canadian sources of strategic materials by countries behind the iron curtain. It is something which is perhaps difficult to deal with but the government wishes to have all its officials do everything possible to make it as sure as can be that no strategic materials from Canadian sources can be obtained by countries behind the iron curtain, whether there be apparent compliance with the regulations or not. If we find that by apparent compliance with the regulations there are still loopholes, we want to plug those loopholes because we feel, as does the leader of the opposition, that the people of Canada do not want strategic materials from Canadian sources to become available to countries behind the iron curtain.
[Later] .[DOT]


George Alexander Drew: On a question of privilege, I wish to refer to a word that I used in relation to the export of strategic materials. I recognized as I sat down that it might convey an impression that certainly is not in my mind. I said that we would not wish to have any arrangement whereby, directly or indirectly, strategic supplies or any supplies could go to the countries beyond the iron curtain that would build up their economic or defensive powers. I naturally did not use the word "defensive" in the sense of building up defensive strength because the reason that we are so concerned as Canadians about any strategic materials going there is that we recognize it is not for the purpose of building up defence but for building up their aggressive power. I wished to make that correction so that the word "aggressive" may be used instead of a word that has perhaps come to be used rather loosely as relating to military preparations.



MING SUNG INDUSTRIAL COMPANY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Since this may be the last opportunity during the present year, may I ask the Prime Minister if he can state to the house what the present situation is and what steps the government has taken in regard to the Ming Sung company.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Perhaps the Minister of Finance might inform the house as to what is the position with respect to the Ming Sung company.


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister gave the house some information on this question

when I was in Europe two or three weeks ago. So far as I am aware there has been no change in the situation. The local agents of the department in Hong Kong were instructed to institute legal proceedings to arrest the ships. The ships however have remained in Canton on the assertion of the owners that the crews refused to sail them under these circumstances. The owners of the ships were informed that in view of the attitude which had been taken the ships could no longer be permitted to operate under the Canadian flag. The matter stands there. We are unable to arrest them in Canton. So far as our information goes, they have not moved from Canton in the meantime. The question of Canadian registry is linked with the validity of the mortgages. There are some legal questions involved there, and I do not know that I would care to elaborate on those this morning without further informing myself as to what the situation is.


George Alexander Drew: May I point out that the legal aspect of this matter rests upon a very frail foundation while these ships are in the harbour of Canton. I would suggest it is perfectly obvious that any recognition of a legal obligation will be one which will be enforced by other authorities than our own under these circumstances. I think the dignity of Canada, as well as respect for the Canadian flag, both demand that an order in council be passed immediately rescinding the special order in council which gave them the unusual right to fly the Canadian flag although there were no Canadians manning these ships.


Mr. Graydon:: We should not have been in this in the first place.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of National Health and Welfare answer the question I asked him yesterday?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yesterday my hon. friend asked me: If an application for old age pension is sent in on or before January 1, 1952, but the applicant has not been able to secure proof of age before the end of January or February, will the old age pension date back to January, 1952? The answer is yes. My reason for giving that affirmative reply is based on the act itself. The reason I did not make the reply yesterday was that the section of the act which gives this authority is purely permissive in
Inquiries of the Ministry effect, and as I had anticipated tabling today the regulations pursuant to the Old Age Security Act I preferred to wait until they were tabled. I can now add that pursuant to those regulations, where applicants have difficulty in establishing their age and delay results therefrom, this will be regarded as a delay arising out of circumstances beyond the control of the applicant, and payment in such cases where the application form has been received in December will be made retroactive to January 1.



CANADIAN MISSIONARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer the question asked by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne) on Thursday last dealing with the number of Canadian missionaries still remaining in China and whether the government had any special policy with regard to their repatriation.
The records of the Department of External Affairs show that the total number of Canadians in China is 201, and of these 162 are missionaries and their dependents. On a number of occasions toward the end of the civil war in China, and after the communists achieved power, the Canadian government notified all Canadian citizens in China known to the Canadian representatives that in view of the situation in that country they should leave as soon as possible. Many of them have done so, as the figures I have just given would indicate. Others have not been able to or, from the highest motives of service to the Chinese people themselves, have not desired to.
The established policy of the Canadian government is to repatriate, if necessary at public expense, any Canadians in distress abroad. With regard to those Canadian citizens who are still in China, the Canadian government takes as generous as possible a view administratively as to what constitutes destitution or distress among missionaries in China. In such cases the government is always ready, upon request by a church order or society, to do everything it can to assist the repatriation from China of any of its missionary members. On receipt of this assistance, the order or society is asked to give the usual undertaking for repayment.
It is becoming increasingly clear that Canadian missionaries and others have been subjected and are still exposed to mistreatment and injustice by the authorities of the Chinese

Inquiries of the Ministry communist government. There are no grounds which justify these actions which, indeed, violate all standards of decent international conduct. The government, and especially the Department of External Affairs, have received both privately and publicly a good deal of advice as to what should be done to stop this persecution and to protect Canadian citizens. The difficulties in the way of action which is likely to be effective in this regard are obvious, especially when we do not recognize the communist government of China and must, therefore, request the diplomatic good offices of other states. But I can assure the house that we are doing everything we possibly can to discharge our responsibilities in this matter. I would add, however, that if we tried to intervene along lines which have, with the best of intentions, been advocated by some, we would not help the unfortunate Canadians concerned but might well increase their difficulties and, indeed, add to their dangers.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. A. M. Kirk (Digby-Yarmouih):: In
view of the change in our procedure, are we going to be permitted to ask oral questions now? If so, I should like to direct one to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Fisheries.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house that oral questions should be asked now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Andrew Murray Kirk: I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant to the minister two brief questions based on my question to him of a week ago Friday. Is the Department of Fisheries carrying on an investigation to ascertain the loss suffered by the lobster fishermen of southwestern Nova Scotia owing to severe storms in the last week? If such an investigation is being carried on, has he as yet any figures to indicate the extent of the loss?


Mr. J. Watson MacNaughi (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. The Department of Fisheries, as it does in all cases where the welfare of fishermen is involved, is carrying out an investigation concerning the amount of damage done by the storm in Nova Scotia. Preliminary reports have been received concerning the amount of damage but not sufficient information has come to hand on which could be based any actual estimate of the amount of damage done.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. Blair (Lanark):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the minister ready to make a statement on the measures to be taken by the government to relieve the unemployment situation in the Canadian textile industry? This matter is urgent.


Hon. Milion F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: I think my hon. friend perhaps refers to that phase of unemployment to which he called our attention the other day. I know that he attended a meeting in that connection within the last few days. When he spoke to me the other day I told him that just before Christmas, with officials of the various departments of government concerned, I met a delegation on the matter. Since that time I have taken their representations up with the ministers concerned and the matter is receiving consideration.



IMPORTATION OF REFRIGERATORS-LAY-OFFS IN CANADIAN PLANTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Onl.):: I
should like to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in view of the fact that I have received a communication from a labour group in my riding indicating that the work days had been cut from four to three days per week. On December 21 I asked a question about refrigerator freezer units and it was claimed that last year less than 500 refrigerators came from the United States whereas this year the number ^ is 98,000. Has the government done anything to stop this dumping?


George James McIlraith: I believe there is no evidence of dumping at all in so far as refrigerators are concerned. The departmental officials have checked into the whole question of refrigerators, their production and sale in this country. I recognize it is not appropriate to debate the subject or deal with it fully now, but I feel I should place on the record the fact that in the early part of this year there was a rate of production on refrigerators that was very much beyond any reasonable expectation of consumption in Canada for this year. A considerable amount of the difficulty of that industry is due to that factor. As to dumping, I am not aware of any dumping within the meaning of the act.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: In reference to dumping, may I say one word-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I interject for a moment to say that today I have allowed wider latitude than the wide latitude I have allowed regularly, since this may be the last day of the session. I do not like to stop an hon. member at this time, but may I ask all hon. members to endeavour to abide by the rules with respect to the asking of questions.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I refer to this question of dumping because the Minister of Trade and Commerce referred to it as dumping when he answered the question on December 21.



ARMY CLOTHING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to a question asked yesterday on the orders of the day by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair), which was as follows:
Is it true that the Canadian- government has placed orders for army clothing in Britain, United States or France?
The answer is that no army clothing has been purchased in Britain, the United States or France with the exception of 75,000 pairs of socks of United States pattern and 50,000 pairs of cotton field trousers purchased in the United States last April and May to outfit Canadian troops training in the United States and proceeding to Korea. There was also an order for 2,590 kilts, involving seven different tartans, which were purchased in Scotland by the Department of Defence Production.
However, textiles have been imported when not available in Canada, but this has been done only after consultation with the industry. Wherever possible the material has been purchased in the greige, to be finished in Canada.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. C. Black (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture about some questions I submitted on November 2 with respect to certain expenses in connection with marshlands reclamation. This is not by way of criticism of those who have the matter in hand; it is for the purpose of getting information for a great many people who want it. The questions were made an order for return and I have never received it. My questions were submitted on November 2.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the only reason why the return has not been brought down yet
Inquiries of the Ministry is that we would have to send down to the maritimes for some information and probably it has not come back yet. As soon as I get the information, I shall see that the hon. member gets it, whether the return is down or not.


Percy Chapman Black: I wish to thank the minister for his courtesy.
[Later]:


Mr. Roberi McCubbin (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, if you will permit me to revert to motions I should like to lay on the table parliamentary return No. 25, moved for by Mr. Black (Cumberland); subject: What was the total expenditure under the marshland reclamation program, by projects?


Percy Chapman Black: I am very pleased to get that return, but I should like to have a copy of it, if I may, as the mover of the motion.


Robert McCubbin: We will try to get one for the hon. member.



POULTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Percy Chapman Black: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if the vaccine used in Nova Scotia as a preventive against the possibility of Newcastle disease in poultry had the opposite effect and actually infected the hatcheries with this serious disease with the result that the birds vaccinated actually died by the thousand, and the disease was spread where there was none before, and is now a menace in whole communities. Are the owners to be fully reimbursed for the birds destroyed? Are the owners of hatcheries and others to be reimbursed for the loss of business?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, we have legislation under which payments are made when farmers lose livestock because of the ravages of certain diseases. Under that legislation payments are made when the poultry has been destroyed as a result of the ravages of Newcastle disease among poultry. There has been some discussion with regard to the vaccine which has been used for the purpose of combating the disease. That question came first from the province of British Columbia. We have had considerable discussion with persons involved there. Since the outbreak in the maritimes we have been having some similar experience, but the matter of dealing with it has not gone sufficiently far yet for me to say definitely

Inquiries of the Ministry what the final decisions will be in connection with it. Much of the effort which is being made to combat the disease is of necessity experimental and there may be occasions upon which there is some responsibility involved; but so far none has been established. At the moment we are simply making the investigation and in due course the whole matter can be dealt with and announced.


Percy Chapman Black: Mr. Speaker, I understand the outbreak in the maritimes is due to faulty vaccine, not to an ordinary outbreak of the disease.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, Mr. Speaker, that
is scarcely correct. We would not have been doing anything at all in the maritimes with regard to the disease had there not been an outbreak. The outbreak was there before we were operating at all in the province. There is some question, with regard to certain flocks, as to whether there might have been an outbreak in those flocks had not certain things been done; but that matter has not been cleared up yet.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
.	ASSEMBLY
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinion):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. How did Canada vote in the United Nations assembly on December 20 in the contest between Greece and Byelorussia for election to the United Nations security council?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The vote in these elections in the United Nations is by secret ballot; and I do not think it would accomplish any purpose at this moment if I declared how we voted on this occasion.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I know this matter is not debatable, but while the vote is secret in the United Nations assembly I do not see any reason why secrecy should be observed in this House of Commons with regard to a matter which I think is of no little interest to hon. members.



PAYMENT OF STENOGRAPHERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron North):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Owing to the fact that some members of the stenographers' staff find themselves short of cash, and because of the possibility that the house may close tonight, will

they be expected to report for duty on Monday, and if not, when can they expect their cheques?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid that is a matter that falls under the jurisdiction of Mr. Speaker, and not under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance. The house vote is there. It is available for the employees of the house in the normal way. I am sure that the office downstairs, including the treasury officer there, will do its utmost to see that not only the members of parliament but the members of the staff receive all that they should receive before the end of the current year.



AUDIBILITY OF DEBATE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:	*
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosefown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. Does he contemplate doing anything further with regard to the installation of amplifiers or a public address system in this chamber before the house meets next time?


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, I wish I could give that assurance to my hon. friend; but in order to sign this contract there have to be two parties, namely the contracting party which does the work and the Department of Public Works. To date we have not reached an agreement. I will tell my officials to do their best to proceed with haste, as they always do.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, it is impossible not to recognize the fact that if there is one minister who can give an unsatisfactory explanation in a satisfactory manner, it is the Minister of Public Works. But I would point out that this subject has been under discussion for many years, and that while it has been under discussion here the House of Commons at Westminster has been rebuilt, that a system of loud speakers has been installed there which is entirely satisfactory, and that in a country which is not usually regarded to live at a tempo equal to that at which we live in our own country, they seem to have done quite a number of things prior even to the installation of the equipment, and then to have been able to put equipment into operation to the complete satisfaction of the members of parliament and everyone who visits Westminster.


Alphonse Fournier: As the leader of the opposition often does, he has spoken with sense this morning. I am not alone in this matter. Had I been alone, I would have installed that system four years ago.


George Alexander Drew: Where are you being restrained?


Alphonse Fournier: It was necessary to get the agreement of 262 members as to what system we would instal.


An hon. Member:: It was given last year.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker went to Britain and to Rome. A former Speaker went to Havana and to Spain or some other country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: What about Peru?


Alphonse Fournier: They both came back with their personal ideas. Then we had a committee of the house sitting with Mr. Speaker, and that committee decided that we should instal here a system similar to that in Britain.


Major James William Coldwell: That is right.


Alphonse Fournier: I suppose that the Tannoy company of Britain have patents on their equipment. We have to deal directly with -them. I cannot see any other firm in Canada that actually has a similar system.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Speak up, please.


Some hon. Members:: Louder.


Alphonse Fournier: Being in the hands of the company which could instal that system, we have to come to some agreement, and we have not come to that agreement. I have outlined what we thought we would do for the House of Commons, namely have this company instal this system, maintain it in a state of repair and operate it, and then we would sign a lease with this company for some years and give it a trial. We have not reached that stage, but you may rest assured that after I have taken a few days' rest during New Year's time I will personally attend to this matter.


Major James William Coldwell: Do I understand that a firm offer has been made by the Minister of Public Works to the British company-


An hon. Member:: No.


Major James William Coldwell: -that you will be prepared to enter into an agreement of this description provided satisfactory financial arrangements could be made?


Alphonse Fournier: If my memory serves me correctly we tabled correspondence with the company at the request of the hon. member and in that correspondence we were discussing the way we could proceed with the installation of this system. We will in the future have this system installed.
Inquiries of the Ministry



REQUEST FOR DATE OF NEXT SESSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I am sure it would be of great assistance to hon. members in making their future plans if they could know approximately when the government expect us to come back in session. Has the Prime Minister anything to say about that matter at this time?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot make any forecast at this time as to the date when parliament will reconvene for another session. We shall have to dispose of this one first. As suggested by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier), there are quite a number of matters that have not been attended to because of the pressure upon the cabinet of sessional business. They will have to be dealt with between the sessions, and I hope they can be dealt with both expeditiously and efficiently.


Gordon Graydon: I hope we will not have to wait until the loud speakers are installed.



REQUEST FOR ENGLISH &quot;HANSARD&quot; INDEX

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-François Pouliot: Referring to a recent tribute by the member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) to the persons who prepared the English index of Hansard for the first session of 1950 and the first session of 1951 as well as this session, is it true that the three indexes will be ready and available to the members one week after prorogation?


Mr. Speaker:: It is not the custom of Mr. Speaker to answer questions from the floor of the house. All I can say at this time is that the matter is receiving the careful attention of the officials of the house, and I am informed progress is being made. I shall be pleased to give the hon. member for Temiscouata any further information which I have on this matter if he will be kind enough to see me in my chamber.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you, but the progress is not to that extent, if my understanding is correct.



FEED GRAIN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon):: I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Why is the western livestock producer

North. Atlantic Treaty
being asked to pay $1.35J per bushel for barley feed when the total payment received by the western barley producer for the 1951 crop was $1.10J? Is this price of $1.35J per bushel asked by the wheat board uniform right across Canada?


George James McIlraith: have had no notice of that question. It is obviously one that cannot be answered offhand. There are several allegations of fact in the question, and I must assume the statements made are true, but I should like the opportunity of checking before giving any answer.



NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY


Lester Bowles Pearson: That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the protocol to the North Atlantic treaty on the accession of Greece and Turkey, signed by Canada at London on October 17, 1951, and that this house do approve the same.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the resolution which you have just read, and which I have the honour to recommend to the house, transfers our discussion from the domestic to the international field, and from the interesting if somewhat contentious questions of resale price maintenance to the equally interesting, but I think possibly less contentious, subject of the membership of Greece and Turkey in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Before dealing with that specific matter, it might be desirable if I made a short statement, not on the general international situation but on the work of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization itself, because that will I believe assist the members in understanding the importance and indeed the meaning of this resolution.
Hon. members will know, of course, that the council of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization met a month or so ago in Rome. It was, I believe, the eighth meeting of the council. Some very important questions indeed faced the council at that meeting. Some of these questions had been postponed from the meeting which was held in Ottawa, and some of them were new questions. The main problems which faced us in Rome were as follows: First, we examined, though in no official sense because that work was not completed, the work of the temporary council committee appointed by the council at its Ottawa meeting. This committee had the responsibility of attempting to match the requirements for defence and the resources
[Mr. Dinsdale.I
of the separate members of the council which could be devoted to that defence, having regard to their political and economic capabilities.
This work of the T.C.C. under the chairmanship of Mr. Harriman, known as the burden-sharing exercise, was not completed; indeed it had not been nearly completed when we met at Rome, and we were not able to deal with it at that time. Since our meeting in Rome, however, the executive committee of this committee of twelve, also popularly known as the three wise men, have made a report on the matter to the full committee.
The committee of twelve met in Paris the other day to consider that report, and will meet again in Paris on January 15 to give further and final consideration to it. The subject will then be referred to the next meeting of the North Atlantic council, which will be held sometime in February, in Lisbon, Portugal. I do not think it would be desirable for me to say anything more at this time about that report, because it has not yet been finally submitted to governments, and no final decision has been taken on it yet by these governments.
Another very important question which faced us in Rome, and will face us again in Lisbon, is the association of Germany with western European and Atlantic defence. It is a matter of vital concern to the defence of peace in western Europe; but one that bristles with difficulties which, I suppose, are better appreciated on the continent of Europe than they are on the continent of North America. This association is now being discussed by the European countries concerned, and it is hoped that it can be brought about by the creation of a European defence force, which would itself be part of General Eisenhower's integrated force for the defence of western Europe under the Atlantic council. Progress is being made in the creation of this European defence force, and we hope that the council at its next meeting will be able to take important and far-reaching decisions regarding it.	.
Another question which is related to the one I have just mentioned, and which concerns our North Atlantic council, is the progress being made in the replacement of the German occupation statute by a peace contract with the government of the federal republic of Germany. Progress has also been made in this matter, but I think it is obvious to hon. members that a decision must be reached in regard to it before we can reach a final decision in regard to the association of western Germany with western European

defence. These two subjects are interrelated; indeed, they hang together. These are complicated problems, and we should not I think get too impatient if final decisions are not reached in regard to them at once.
Another question which faced us at Rome, Mr. Speaker, was that of command in the north Atlantic and indeed command in the Mediterranean. We also discussed at Rome the question of the re-organization of the North Atlantic organization. It is becoming in a sense a rather unwieldy international agency. It has grown quickly. It has grown, as things sometimes do which grow quickly, without that kind of arrangement and planning which we would have desired, and which we would have achieved if we had had more time. So we are giving consideration in the North Atlantic organization now to the streamlining, the making more effective of the whole organization. Also-and this will be of very considerable interest I know to some hon. members-we received at our North Atlantic council meeting a report from the committee of five on non-military co-operation. That was in the nature of an interim report, and not meant to be anything else. Because it is an interim report I do not think I need say much more about it at this time, Mr. Speaker. We are continuing our work on this committee of five, and we will have something more to say about it at the next meeting in Portugal.
Then finally at Rome-and this was not a problem; it was a privilege-we welcomed to our deliberations, not as full members, because the protocol that we are considering today has not been accepted, but as observers for the first time, the representatives of Greece and Turkey. The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) asked me a few moments ago how we had voted in the security council of the United Nations in the contest between Greece and Byelorussia for election to the United Nations security council. We have not in the past declared publicly how we vote in these matters and, as I said a few moments ago, no useful purpose would be served if I made a public declaration now; but I will assure him and the house that we welcomed very much the membership of Greece in the security council of the United Nations, just as we welcomed the representatives of Greece and Turkey to our North Atlantic council meeting in Rome as observers.
These big questions which I have mentioned and which are vital for peace and security in Europe were not decided at Rome. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of the United Kingdom said not long ago that
North Atlantic Treaty
the Rome meeting was in a sense an intermediate meeting between the Ottawa meeting and the next meeting in Portugal. But it has become increasingly clear that we cannot postpone decisions on these matters indefinitely and we are expecting decisions to be taken at the next meeting.


Gordon Graydon: They cannot all be intermediate meetings.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I read not long ago in the New York Times an article by one of its European correspondents, Mr. Sulzberger, which very well summarizes I think the Rome meeting and the problems that faced us in the North Atlantic organization subsequent to that meeting. Mr. Sulzberger wrote at that time:
NATO undoubtedly became aware at this Rome meeting that its development is at a very critical stage. However, the ministers proved that they could debate one another's views in what is becoming a small and select parliament-
I may say in parentheses, it was not so small at Rome. One of our difficulties in the North Atlantic council is the number of people who now attend the meetings. We had between 300 and 400 at one of the meetings in Rome, and it is very difficult to conduct intimate informal discussions with that number of people in the room. Mr. Sulzberger goes on:
-and still remain friends and allies. They also recognized that there is value in the habit of getting together.
And that value is emphasized more and more the oftener we meet together. He went on:
The organization must surely have recognized that it is now in the period where it will suffer its greatest growing pains. Looking back, it can recognize the considerable achievement of the past year, in which an army with its allied headquarters has been consolidated in Europe. But looking forward, it is becoming increasingly aware of long, difficult and expensive years looming ahead for an indefinite time.
The price of liberty is rather high and every one of the twelve nations (plus Greek and Turkish observers) was surely even more aware of that truism when the Rome meeting was over. This awareness is a necessity as the pact develops toward that condition of strength which, it is hoped, will finally permit the negotiation of a more real peace than exists today.
As one further step toward that goal of the negotiation of a real peace, we are today discussing a protocol which provides for membership in our North Atlantic Treaty Organization of Greece and Turkey. I said something about this matter in the house on October 22, and I do not wish to repeat what I said then. Hon. members will recall that at our North Atlantic council meeting in Ottawa in September it was decided unanimously to take the steps which would be
2522	HOUSE OF
North Atlantic Treaty
necessary to invite Greece and Turkey to full membership in the organization. And the protocol which we have before us, and which I think has been in the hands of hon. members for some weeks, is the result of that decision taken in Ottawa.
What faces us now, before that protocol can be made effective, and before an invitation can be given to the countries in question, is its ratification. That, following a well-established constitutional practice, should receive parliamentary approval before the government acts. It is parliamentary approval we are requesting today in the resolution before the house.
This question of the membership of Greece and Turkey in our North Atlantic Treaty Organization is the result of long and careful consideration. There were various ways by which these two countries could be associated with the defence of western Europe, and with the defence of the Mediterranean and North Atlantic states. We examined these various ways before we decided on the solution of full membership. If we took some time in examining the alternative methods, it was not because we did not appreciate the importance of associating Turkey and Greece with our efforts in the North Atlantic organization.
These are two countries, Mr. Speaker, one of which has already been the victim of communist aggression, and the other of which in recent years has had to face threats of communist aggression. They have already indicated their devotion to peace, and their determination to protect their freedom.
They are two countries which in Korea have also proven their devotion to the idea of collective security. They have proven it by the heroic action of their men on the battlefields there. If we considered this question at some length it was also not because we did not realize the importance of safeguarding and strengthening the south flank of the North Atlantic area or because we did not realize the importance of the contribution Turkey and Greece could make to that end.
It was thought at one stage that possibly the result which we all desired could be achieved by some kind of reinforcement of the bilateral defence arrangements which these two countries already had with the United States and certain other countries, and which by the overlapping membership of those arrangements with the membership in the North Atlantic council could achieve the purpose we had in mind.
It was also thought at one stage that possibly this purpose might be achieved by building up a separate Middle East or


Mediterranean pact which would be closely associated with the North Atlantic pact, again through overlapping membership and possibly military planning.
After careful consideration it was decided that the best solution of this problem was not those which I have indicated, but rather an invitation to these countries to become full members in the North Atlantic council, and signatories to the North Atlantic pact.
That was the position taken from the beginning by the United States and by the United Kingdom. It was the position taken by the governments of Greece and Turkey themselves, who felt that full membership was the best solution to this problem, from their point of view. It was the position taken by the North Atlantic military advisers. It was felt also that, even if it had been desirable, probably it would take too long to work out a Mediterranean or Middle Eastern or Near Eastern pact which, indeed, if we tried to do it, would involve problems of inclusion and exclusion which would not be settled easily, at least at this stage.
As a result of this consideration we agreed unanimously to draw up a protocol, which, if it were ratified by all the governments of the North Atlantic organization, would invite those two countries to accede to our pact.
The effect of the protocol is not to extend the nature of our obligations under the North Atlantic treaty. Those remain as they were. It does, of course, extend the area of obligations, the area in which we specify and reaffirm and indeed organize to carry out the general commitments which we have already undertaken as signatories to the United Nations charter.
While I admit that this protocol, if it comes into effect, extends the area of our international obligations, I think that an examination of this question must convince hon. members that that extension is more theoretical than real. If, for instance, a full-out aggressive attack took place on these countries, such aggression would immediately involve other countries, under their arrangement with these countries; and that, in turn, would involve the North Atlantic countries- and, indeed, it would be world war III.
Now, the step which we are recommending removes any uncertainty on this score. And uncertainty, as history proves, can sometimes in these matters be the greatest danger to peace. It strengthens peace by removing this uncertainty and by adding the defensive strength of these countries to our North Atlantic defensive alliance. It strengthens the deterrent value of NATO; and thereby,

it makes for that peace, which is the only objective of the North Atlantic organization.
There is nothing provocative in this protocol, nor would there be anything provocative in the membership of Greece and Turkey in our defensive organization. It constitutes a threat to no one, except the aggressor. By removing, as I have indicated, the temptation to aggression in that area, an aggression which undoubtedly would spread all over western Europe, and therefore spread all over the world, it strengthens security everywhere.
That, Mr. Speaker, is why the government recommends this protocol to the House of Commons at this time.


Gordon Graydon: Before the minister takes his seat may I ask him a question. I believe it could be done better now than during the course of my remarks. Would he mind explaining to the house the significance of article II, which seems to be somewhat difficult to understand, and may present difficulty to those who read it for the first time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should be glad to try to do it now. Article II, which I shall put on the record, and explain as I go along, reads as follows:
If the republic of Turkey becomes a party to the North Atlantic treaty, article 6 of the treaty shall, as from the date of the deposit by the government of the republic of Turkey of its instrument of accession with the government of the United States of America, be modified to read as follows:
And this would be the new article 6 on the accession of Turkey.
For the purpose of article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the parties is deemed to include an armed attack-
(i)	on the territory of any of the parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian departments of France, on the territory of Turkey or on the islands under the jurisdiction of any of the parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
The reason why Turkey is mentioned specifically, while Greece is not, is that Greece is a European country and will be covered by the words "territory of any of the parties in Europe." As most of the territory of Turkey is not in Europe, Turkey had to be mentioned specifically. The second part of this article II of the protocol reads, and I shall repeat the governing phrase:
For the purpose of article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the parties is deemed to include an armed attack-
(ii)	on the forces, vessels or aircraft of any of the parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the parties were stationed on the date when the treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
North Atlantic Treaty
The change in that paragraph is to be found in the words "or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the parties were stationed on the date when the treaty entered into force." While that has no strict reference to the accession of Greece and Turkey it was included to take into consideration the possibility of the present occupation statute in western Germany being replaced by a peace treaty or a peace contract. If that took place and this change had not been made in the North Atlantic treaty the obligation to come to the help of forces of the member powers in western Germany would not exist because the treaty as we have it now applies only to occupation forces in western Germany. After the peace treaty or peace contract with western Germany they would not be occupation forces and so the words are used as they appear in this article II of the protocol.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to thank the minister for making clear the terms of that section of the protocol to which I referred a few moments ago. Speaking on behalf of the official opposition I think I should first of all indicate to the house that our party approves of the protocol to the North Atlantic treaty on the accession of Greece and Turkey. That having been said, there are some observations I should like to make this morning with respect to the matters with which this protocol deals.
I was interested in the remarks of the minister a few moments ago when he indicated that the meeting at Rome, which was held not so many weeks ago, was, in his own words, or in the words of someone else whom he quoted, an intermediate meeting between Ottawa and Lisbon. When the discussions were being held in Ottawa they were loosely referred to as being intermediate between the last meeting and the meeting to be held in Rome. We are now pushing our frontiers a little further along and Rome seems to be intermediate between Ottawa and Lisbon. I hope Lisbon will not turn out to be intermediate between Rome and another conference.
I think the peoples of the North Atlantic community deserve to have something concrete laid before their parliaments without much further delay because there is a great deal of conflict and confusion in the minds of the public as to where we are going in connection with the North Atlantic organization.
I think we have gone as far as we dare go in collaborating with the other nations of the North Atlantic community, without making certain that Canadian public opinion is along with us in what is certainly regarded by everyone as being a great and important

North Atlantic Treaty
objective, that is the preservation of peace itself. I hope that when the minister is closing this debate he will take the opportunity to reply to certain inquiries which I propose to make during my participation in the discussion in order that we may have a more comprehensive picture of where we stand in connection with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Of course it would be idle to suggest that everything has been sweet and lovely so far as the deliberations of the North Atlantic council up to the present time are concerned. The meeting in Ottawa brought out some important facts. Perhaps it may be said that that meeting democratized the institution to some extent. It certainly brought into the council of the organization some of the smaller powers which up to that time had not felt that their voices had been heard in the same way as those of some of the larger powers.
There was one thing that struck me in connection with the meeting at Ottawa, and I speak only as an outside observer who was here while the meetings were in progress. I refer to the desire of certain European nations not to have their economies affected too greatly by NATO obligations with respect to military matters in the hope that they may be able to keep up their present social security programs in order to keep the threat of communism from penetrating from within while they are preparing to halt it from without before it commits any act of aggression. There I suppose rests one of the principal problems which NATO has to deal with.
Up to the present time there have been many committees working on what is required, but I think the great problem will be to find out how far each nation is prepared to go in carrying its share of the burden which it considers necessary in order that peace shall be preserved. When the minister goes to Lisbon I hope that, so far as Canada is concerned, he will take with him some concrete plans to be meshed in with those of other members of NATO so that we shall come out of Lisbon with something that is real and not merely visionary and imaginary.
If we do not come out of Lisbon with something.that is worth while in the opinion of the public of this and other countries I am afraid we may have a lessening of enthusiasm and support which normally would be given to the NATO organization.
As one who from the beginning has been a strong advocate and supporter of NATO, I think we should make sure that this country is a supporter of NATO not only in words but in carrying out its commitments to the extent to which we should go in the interests of peace.
[Mr. Graydon.l
As the minister has said, two more countries are being taken into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I could not agree more with what the minister said a few moments ago when he pointed out the necessity of removing the last vestige of uncertainty in connection with crucial and delicate areas in various parts of the world. I am satisfied that uncertainty, wavering and hesitancy are an open invitation to trouble in many of these areas. I am satisfied that if prior to the crossing of the 38th parallel in June of 1950 there had been no hesitancy and uncertainty on the part of the United Nations then those who control the red armies, whether they are North Korean, Chinese or Russian, would not have proceeded to cross the 38'th parallel at all. Having that very definitely in mind, it seems to me that the risk which some people think is involved in our acceptance of the membership of Turkey and Greece in the North Atlantic community is much less than they would have us think. While people say there are two tender spots so far as the Russian mind is concerned, the Dardanelles, the sea of Marmora and the Bosphorus, and at the Elbe in Germany, nevertheless let us not forget that something similar was said when Norway came into the organization. People said that Norway was taking a very long chance. The Norwegians interested in the preservation of peace were perhaps taking a long chance, particularly when a country so exposed to the Soviet flank joined such an organization even for defensive purposes, as it was understood it was to be.
But strangely enough, if my information is correct, the Soviet sent about the same kind of note to the Norwegians objecting to their entry into the organization as they have sent to the Turks and the Greeks. I think that indicates that after all if the Soviets are prepared to move they are not going to move just because we have made it certain that if they do so in a certain troubled spot and attack one nation all the others in the same organization will take appropriate action to stop that aggression. Having learned some of the lessons of two world wars, I think we ought to apply them now, and I am one of those who believe strongly that we should not allow a fog of uncertainty to settle over the Aegean sea or the sea of Marmora at this time. It is a strategic point because of the fact that the Soviets today are following the policy of trying to move towards warm water ports. Such a policy characterized the regimes of the old czars of yesterday. In all the Soviet moves outside the communist movement itself where it has been a question of Russia as a nation as opposed to other parts of the globe, there has been a strange

similarity between the foreign policy of the old czaristic regime and the present foreign policy of the Soviet.
Through all the years one of the great plans which the Russians of yesterday had in their minds was to find an open warm water port for their commerce and shipping to the south of their land and into the Mediterranean. That has not changed. I believe we are taking today a step that is not provocative, a step which does not involve so great a risk, and one which I think will help rather than hinder the cause of peace in that area. When we talk of the North [DOT] Atlantic Treaty Organization I think we have an obligation to the people of Canada whom we expect to support it to the limit once parliament has taken certain courses of action concerning it. I remember saying, when I came back from San Francisco, that I believed it was important that we should have the people solidly behind whatever we are doing in external affairs to the fullest possible extent because, as I said then and repeat now, in my opinion you cannot have a just, lasting and permanent peace unless it be in every form and fashion a people's peace.
I want to repeat those words again on this resolution because the minister spoke a few moments ago of it as being only a question of an extension of area. The extension of the area is pretty important. It is much more than just a detail to be .considered along With the extension of the principle itself. For that reason Canadians must not enter into the additional commitments with their eyes shut. They must know the complications and implications involved because it is a serious business no matter how we may look at it. It means that we are at war if even the easterly province of Turkey is invaded. In this sense the protocol creates for Canada the most far-flung obligations of a direct nature that she has had in her entire diplomatic history. I am not saying, because it is the most far-flung diplomatic commitment in our history, that we should in any way be afraid to risk it. I have already said we are in favour of it, but I think it raises problems which the people of Canada must understand, and as a result of understanding will give just that much more basic support in the years that lie ahead.
It raises more problems than simply those on the military front. If I may say so, it raises problems on the political and economic front. I believe the house should be told by the minister at this time what are the full implications on the political and economic fronts as well as the military front as the result of the admission of these two Middle Eastern powers. I think we should be made thoroughly aware of all the ramifications of the
94639-160a
North Atlantic Treaty
international step we are taking. It is much better that we should know now than to learn it some time later. We are prepared to enter into this arrangement, so let us do so with our eyes open and with a full evaluation and appraisal of the advantages and disadvantages, if any, which may be inherent therein.
In dealing with the question of Greece and Turkey I should like to echo some of the things that the minister very properly put on the record. I think it has always been a matter of great pride to the Canadian people to see the way in which Greece and Turkey stand up to those who would interfere with their freedom. We in Canada are a long way from the troubled spots, although perhaps closer in these days than we sometimes think; but nevertheless in relative geographic mileage we are quite a way from these troubled spots. It is sometimes a little easier for the man a long way from the scene to throw out his chest, be very courageous and say what he is going to do. It is not as easy for the man who is right beside the danger. When one considers that Turkey and Greece are right next to the danger zone, right at the front line if you like, I think one can say that they show us a sterling example of the bravery of their people and the determination of these nations to see to it that the bastions of freedom are not in any way interfered with unduly by any aggressor, whoever he may be.
We have every reason to welcome both Greece and Turkey into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I suppose that part of the importance of Greece, geographically, lies in its location at the Mediterranean end of the Vardar valley which runs right into the Danube basin and into the very heart of communist east Europe. This country was exhausted as few countries were in world war II; she was exhausted to the point where, had it not been for the determination, the grit and the courage of her people, she would have gone under; a lesser people would never have survived and Greece today would have been in the orbit in which are several smaller nations which are now enjoying that questionable constitutional phase of development which can best be known to the Soviets themselves.
In accepting both of these countries, I think it is important to say that they are not liabilities, no matter how you look at it. We are not agreeing to the accession of Greece and Turkey only for the purpose of protecting them. In return for the agreement that we are making we are getting a substantial contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty
2526	HOUSE OF
North Atlantic Treaty
Organization itself. From the military point of view, Turkey has an army whose estimated strength in 1951 was about 500,000 soldiers; Greece had not quite so many. Nevertheless, both countries are in a position, with the support of the great nations, to be able to say that they are not coming in as poor relations. They are coming in on an equal footing and are making a contribution that I think will be of inestimable value to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as a whole. That is the way I like to see nations come in with us. I like to see them come in on an equal footing, on a proper partnership basis; because only then may we be able truly to assess the kind of contribution we all may make.
There will be Canadians, of course, who will naturally look upon this accession of Greece and Turkey in the Middle East as coming somewhat strangely after what has happened in the past in certain connections in that area. The Canadian memory is a long one. It is not so long ago that this government declined to send to a Middle East location, at a commonwealth defence conference there, any full-fledged delegates from this country; and that was a conference dealing with problems in that area that NATO now will be dealing with. It is true that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) said that we were sending an observer. We are not asking Greece and Turkey to come in as observers; we are not going into NATO as observers. We are going in meaning business as a country. It seems to me that many people will perhaps lift their eyebrows over the fact that not so many months ago we were only prepared to send an observer, so little was our interest, seemingly, in Middle Eastern problems. Now, of course, we are going into it on a full-fledged basis. That is no argument against our going in on a full-fledged basis, but I point out that there is an inconsistency there that a sensitive Canadian public, so far as our commonwealth is concerned, will not fail to discern as this program goes forward.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


Gordon Graydon: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: By full-fledged membership, he means active membership, does he?


Gordon Graydon: In NATO, yes. I think everybody will realize that our membership in NATO is an active membership; and I hope that it will become more active as the days go by.
In that same area there was and is today a problem with respect to the Egyptian
[Mr. Graydon.l

matter as well. I can recall that the government took some little time in the house before they were prepared to make a statement on that Middle Eastern problem in support of Britain which was at the time extremely hard pressed. I want to point those things out to the government only to indicate to them that in matters relating to Middle Eastern problems or to any other problems throughout the world, where a matter concerns us-whether it be Britain or whether it be some other country-I think that we as a nation deserve to take a forthright stand. That is one of the reasons why I am so glad that this stand has been taken at this time in connection with our NATO organization in the accession of these two important nations.
I have no intention of going further in connection with that matter, except to ask the minister one question which he will perhaps take occasion to reply to when he rises to close the debate. Now that we have established 4n this matter a somewhat new principle may I ask the minister this? It is, in a sense, a new principle, because prior to this time we were only in a North Atlantic community; now we have extended the principle, if you like, to another community, geographically speaking. Having done that, may I ask the minister whether the North Atlantic Treaty Organization council has in mind the taking into membership any other countries than Greece and Turkey? If so, what are those countries? Also, if I may ask the minister this, what will be the policy which will guide the council in the admission of additional nations from time to time? Perhaps he would also indicate to us whether this is the beginning of a world-wide alliance with respect to the lines between the slave and the free world.
I also want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the house, that when the minister was speaking about the various economic and military ramifications of our commitments to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, he did not get down to anything that looked to me like even a hint of a cold fact anywhere. It may be that he will say to me: Of course we are going to discuss all these things at Lisbon. What I say, Mr. Speaker, is that we should be discussing in Canada some of the things that we are going to do as well as discussing them at Rome, Lisbon or London. I do not think that any harm will come to this country's representations and its conference activities in other lines if we have a full and frank discussion on the floor of this

parliament as to what Canada's policy is going to be in connection with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
There are a number of vital questions which I think the minister ought to answer before this debate draws to a close, because the signing of international protocols and agreements is one thing, but following them up with decisive and effective action is another. I must say that I was disappointed -in fact I could go much further than that and say I was extremely disappointed, as I know many people were-to read in the newspapers of December 12 last that Canada was one of eight North Atlantic Treaty Organization members which seemed to have been weighed in the balance and found wanting so far as carrying out our commitments was concerned. I think that news, sufficiently widespread in its dissemination, must have been a very poor advertisement for Canada in other countries throughout the world. I believe the minister ought to clear up that point before we close this debate this afternoon. I, for one, did not like to see this country entering into obligations unless it was prepared to carry them out, both in the spirit and in the letter.
I believe there is nothing worse than a country that talks big and does not act as big as it talks. I am not suggesting we are in that position, but I do suggest we might perhaps get into that position if we were to follow along the lines suggested in the newspapers of that date. Immediately after that news came out, that we were asked to boost our contribution from 5 per cent to 10 per cent, if I recall correctly, there were a number of other nations who were in the same position. There were Norway, Denmark, and Italy, to name three that come to my mind. Those three nations did something at once to increase their contribution in order that the execution of their commitments might parallel the commitments themselves. I feel that at this time we ought to have an answer to that question from the minister.
In addition to that there are several questions of which I wish the minister would make a note, and so that we shall save the time of the house I shall not elaborate upon them. Our position would become quite clear if these questions were answered. One of them is, how many months is this organization behind schedule now? There has been a good deal of talk that NATO is behind schedule by something like a year in what it was originally set up to do. We ought to know if it is behind schedule, and if it is how far it is behind and what the chances are for picking up the slack. We ought to know if it is true that the arms output 94699-161
North Atlantic Treaty
of some of the NATO members is down almost to a trickle because of a shortage of money, material and equipment. We ought to know what steps are being taken to prevent the possible break-down of NATO plans for defence, and what progress NATO is making in fitting in political and economic plans with the integrated military pattern. I should like to ask the minister if any beginning has been made with respect to the proposal I made in a speech earlier this session in connection with the setting up of a national development and production board for the purpose of trying to assess and appraise what we had in this country to back up our commitments to NATO and for our own national economic expansion. I should like to know whether or not further consideration has been given to that plan, because I have felt it is something that deserves consideration.
I should like also to ask the minister, in view of the fact that there have been reports of our commitments not having been met, to indicate whether or not that is correct. If it is correct to any extent, will he say what position the government is taking with respect to picking up that slack in the near future as well? I shall try to complete what I have to say before one o'clock, but I should like to ask the minister to comment upon an article-no doubt he has it in his files, too- with respect to the other than military aid which this country may be asked for at Lisbon, or perhaps has been asked to furnish. As the minister knows, there is a line of demarcation between the military and nonmilitary aid. I believe it was the Financial Post that referred to the fact that we might be asked to send wheat and some other products to these countries. Will he state whether or not this kind of mutual aid, which apparently is being incorporated into the NATO structure itself, carries the judgment of the government and whether they intend to deal with it before the meeting at Lisbon? May I just ask the minister one more question? In any of the commitments which the government may be contemplating, what share of Canadian agricultural or industrial products is likely to be earmarked in such a program for the United Kingdom? Is this to form a part of the discussion between Prime Minister Churchill and the government in January of next year? I think we ought to have from the minister, if he can give it at this time, all the concrete proposals the government has in mind presenting to the Lisbon meeting in February designed to increase the tempo of the NATO plans.
I should like to close my remarks by saying that in the accession by protocol of Greece and Turkey I believe we are taking one more

North Atlantic Treaty
step in that great and comprehensive plan for peace. There were those behind the iron curtain who said, when NATO was set up, that it meant war instead of peace. Subsequent events have not borne that out. In my opinion the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has had a stabilizing effect upon Europe and upon the peace of the world. It is for that reason that this party, this parliament and this government, anxious as we all are to preserve and promote the interests of peace in every shape and form, are prepared to take this further step, in the hope that we shall further promote the cause of peace and see that casualty lists on a global scale have been published for the last time and that the dogs of war shall never be unleashed again.


Major James William Coldwell: May I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.



TRIPARTITE FISHERIES CONFERENCE


John Watson MacNaught: I beg
leave to lay on the table of the house resolutions and request of the final session of the tripartite fisheries conference held in Tokyo, Japan, December, 1951.



NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson:
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the protocol to the North Atlantic treaty on the accession of Greece and Turkey, signed by Canada at London on October 17, 1951, and that this house do approve the same.
Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, today we are discussing a very important matter, and I sometimes think that the house is not nearly as interested in international affairs as it might be. During the past few days we have had a fairly full house discussing a matter of great domestic importance and interest, and I noticed this morning that after the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) had spoken the house pretty well emptied, and when the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) began to speak shortly afterwards I made a count and there were only 22 members in the house. That I think is a great pity, because after all international affairs are very important

not only to our own country but to the countries associated with us, and indeed to the world generally. Canada's position in regard to these matters is one I know that is watched very carefully by a number of other countries, and particularly perhaps by those who are sometimes described as-I do not know now accurately-the middle and smaller powers. However, today we are discussing a matter of some importance, as I have said, both to Canada and to the world, namely, the extension of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to include both Greece and Turkey. This, it seems to me, extends the association to an extent which cannot properly be considered to be a part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I understand the reasons why this has been done, and the necessity that the nations that have co-operated together in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization considered made it, as they have said, essential; but at the same time I think we should understand more clearly that what we are doing today is making an extension of this treaty beyond what many of us contemplated when the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was set up and when we gave it our support.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs this morning gave a very interesting review of the events that transpired at Rome, the discussions that took place there, as far as he was able to review them. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that the less secrecy we have in connection with these matters-at least as far as the members of the House of Commons are concerned-the better it is for all of us and for the world.
I was sorry this morning when the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that he did not think he should tell the house how Canada voted recently in connection with the appointment of one of the elected members to the security council. After all, these matters may involve us in difficulties, and indeed perchance in war, and the members of this House of Commons will be called upon to make a decision, so I think that we should be kept well informed of all that transpires and of all the attitudes of the government in relation to these matters, because I say to those of us who are in the house now, and to our successors, that should grave situations arise in the future, hon. members may be called upon to make decisions that may have far-reaching effects on the history of our own country, the welfare of our own people and of the world.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: It is not a
trade secret.


Major James William Coldwell: No. Of course, as the hon. member for Greenwood says, it is not a trade secret, because after all the newspapers have told us that Canada voted one way and then voted another way. If that is not true, the minister might inform us as to what inaccuracies there are in these reports. In any event, newspapers seem to give us information that we should get from the government and from the minister. At least, then it would be authoritative, and we should not be misinformed in any particular.
This morning the minister also went into the matter of including in the North Atlantic alliance, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say, bringing into association with the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Germany, and the necessity perhaps of some German rearmament. I think that all of us are very anxious indeed that whatever is done shall not in any way establish again militarism in Germany. We have had two world wars, both of which were at least started militarily; and whatever the background of the first and second ones may be, whatever arguments there may have been about the beginnings of these hostilities, nonetheless the first hostile moves were made by Germany. I can quite understand why it is that France, Belgium and other countries in western Europe are fearful lest we once again promote German militarism and bring into being a German military staff. Consequently I think we should hesitate in approving plans for the integration of German forces into the European army, or in association with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, until we know precisely what is to be done and how the objective is to be achieved.
We should pay attention to the internal situation in Germany itself, because after all the political situation in Germany is pretty fluid, and while Dr. Adenauer is now in charge of German policy and the government, an election may change the picture and we might have Dr. Kurt Schumacher in power, which does not seem at all unlikely, a man who has stood against communism and fascism all during his years, but who is not at all sold on the idea that there should be a German army until he is assured that if and when an aggression is committed, if war should follow, the defence will be made on the river Vistula or on the Niemen; in other words, in the east of Germany and not on the western side when Berlin and other parts of Germany would be subjected to new devastation. I think we have to watch that carefully.
Then, there is something to be said with regard to our own contribution, militarily. I must say that I regret this debate is being
94699-16U
North Atlantic Treaty
held today at a time when the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) is about to leave Europe for Canada. I wish he were here, because, if newspaper reports are correct, the views he expressed are very different indeed from the views which I understood the official opposition to express, and different, as I thought, from those I had heard General Pearkes himself express in the house from time to time.
I should like to place this newspaper article on record. The dispatch is dated December 22, from the Canadian Press bureau in Paris, and states:
Major General G. R. Pearkes, V.C., Canadian delegate to the United Nations, said today the Canadian government policy of sending infantry troops to Europe is "unwarranted."
And the word is in quotation marks.
The 63-year-old Victoria Cross winner who acts as military spokesman for the Progressive Conservatives in the Canadian House of Commons said in an interview he believes it would be better to send technicians instead of fighting men.
Pearkes, who has travelled in various parts of western Europe for two months, said he found that Canada's 27th brigade is composed of fine Canadians and is well-housed and well-treated.
"But I do not believe that the money which is being spent by Canadian taxpayers is getting anything like the return in defence assistance to the North Atlantic treaty organization that the Canadian people have a right to expect."
Canada, by sending men, was exporting her most valuable asset. He implied they were being wasted by being sent to countries where manpower was the least of problems.
"I feel that the Canadian government had not fully informed itself or the Canadian people as to actual conditions in Europe before sending the 27th brigade and committing Canada to a long-term policy which to my mind is unwarranted and extremely expensive."
That is a statement made by one for whom, I may say, I have always had and have today the very greatest respect. I know the record of the hon. member during the first war when he was awarded the Victoria Cross, and also during the second war when for a time he was in command of the forces which were subsequently engaged in the Dieppe raid. And, so far as information regarding his views on the raid is concerned, those are views he must be left to express himself. As I say, however, I have the greatest respect for the hon. member and his views on military matters.
I think there is something in what he has said. I am sure other people in this country share my view that while we have a North Atlantic treaty, in the light of the present world situation we have emphasized far too much the military contribution, and have overlooked the economic contribution to which we are committed by article II.
I noted the other day that in the British House of Commons, when the matter was

North Atlantic Treaty
under discussion, Mr. Churchill made the astounding statement-astounding to many o us-when, in referring to Mr. Aneurin Bevan, he said that the hon. member was right, with wrong reasons, for the attitude he took prior to the election in regard to British rearmament.
It seems to me we have been too interested in promoting rearmament without realizing that we must reinforce anything we do in that field with sound economic aid to our allies. To a degree, the same applies to our own country. We know perfectly well that the inflation we are undergoing at the present time is due to the tremendous amount of money we are spending on armaments. We must beware lest in doing this we undermine not only our economy but the support of the people for the defence project to which w>
are committed.
I wish to say immediately that I am not suggesting for one moment that we do not need to be properly armed for the defence of western democracy. What I am saying is that we must beware, lest in supporting rearmament under NATO we overlook some other factors which are at least equally important.
Hence I say once again that I hope our government-and from what I have been able to read from time to time I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) has said this over and over again- realizes that we must do all we can to make article II of the treaty effective, and to give all the economic aid within our power.
I hope that what the minister says publicly to our people in Canada he drives home in confidential meetings that take place in Rome -or, in the next month, in Lisbon-and elsewhere. I am sure that if we are going to meet the threat of communism and totalitarianism all across the world, the final decision will not be made on the field of battle. I believe the fact that we are stronger today militarily has eased the tension. But that tension may be renewed at any time. The great thing we have always to remember is that totalitarian communism can be met only by removing the causes that give an opportunity for communism to grow and to make headway in the world.
The emphasis for a while on guns, tanks, planes, armies, navies and air forces may have been essential; but I do think we should look carefully into those other important factors that in the long run will mean either success or failure of world communist propaganda.
I have just been reading a most interesting book by Mr. Justice Douglas of the Supreme

Court of the United States. This book, "Strange Lands and Friendly People", it is called, contains a most interesting story of his travels in the Near and Middle East during the last two summers. It is a most revealing story, and one which 1 think holds a great lesson for us at the present time.
It may be true that collective security may be strengthened through this protocol; but on the other hand we are undertaking obligations in that protocol

and obligations in a part of the world where, after all, an explosive situation does today exist. This I suggest can be seen from recent events in Egypt and elsewhere.
The extensions of the obligations, as the minister said, are of course territorial rather than military or political. But they are extensions in an area which, to say the least, is explosive. And of course this is quite a reversal of the pre-war policy when we had no commitments whatsoever and parliament was said to be able to decide on what should be done when a situation arose.
The probability is that while many of us were inclined to support that policy prior to the second world war, that aggression and war brought home to us the necessity of the freedom-loving nations standing together after the war in order to prevent aggression wherever it might occur or threaten again in the future. I believe that more and more we have to associate with progressive elements wherever we can find them and with progressive countries wherever they may be established.
I just want to say in passing in connection with the part of the world involved in this protocol, Turkey and Greece, that in them and in the area adjacent to these countries are many millions of people living in squalor, in poverty, in misery and in want, particularly those in the Arab world. That is what makes this whole area explosive and revolutionary. There is the determination on the part of many peasants and ordinary depressed peoples in these countries to throw off the yoke of what they have looked upon, whether rightly or wrongly, as their imperialist oppressors. They want to govern themselves and raise their own standards of living.
As I say, I think we should associate ourselves with any elements in those countries which are promoting democratic methods and better standards of life and give them all the support we can. There is one small country in this area which has demonstrated that great progress can be made by democratic and progressive methods. Of course a new state of Israel comes immediately to mind. Anyone who has followed what has been happening in Israel must be amazed at

the tremendous progress which has been made in that country and how it has become an example to the adjacent countries of Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan, Egypt and other eastern countries. If we are going to associate ourselves with any country in that area -I do not say that we can do this successfully at the present time because of Israel's internal conditions-we should endeavour to associate ourselves with the one democracy which has been established with our own parliamentary system, with Israel.
It is true that we perhaps alienated them, and I think that was done inadvisedly although it may be argued that it was necessary during the war to adopt the attitude that was adopted by the great powers. Nonetheless I say that every attempt should be made today to associate ourselves with Israel and to build up its strength economically and socially and in every other way so that we may have a real democratic friend in an area where heaven knows democracy needs a friend. In that area there are very few organizations that can be called democratic.
In that area, if we include India, there are at least a billion people living under conditions of squalor and misery. Eighty per cent of those people are peasants and one would think that peasants would have enough food. But having to deliver 40, 60 or 80 per cent of their produce to the land owners, in many areas they live in dire poverty. Unfortunately in the past we have been so largely associated with their oppressors. Now revolutionary movements are rising to end this age-old poverty, misery and want.
In my opinion it is in these areas, rather than in western Europe, that the fate of the world will be decided. Unfortunately the Soviet union, I think falsely, has managed to portray itself to the depressed peoples in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt, the Sudan and other countries in the East and Middle East as the nation which alone can bring them deliverance and prosperity. We know perfectly well that if the Soviet union were successful the peoples of those areas would simply be exchanging one group of reactionary rulers for another group of totalitarian dictators.
Consequently I say to the minister that in all these discussions that are taking place, whether in the United Nations or in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Canada should emphasize more and more the necessity for economic aid not only to countries with whom we are associated now but to those living under depressed conditions which may make them susceptible to communist propaganda.
North Atlantic Treaty
While we accept this protocol, while we are aware of the dangers inherent in the extension of the North Atlantic treaty, while territorially we are enlarging our commitments, we realize that this is a most important matter for the parliament and the people of Canada. But again I say we are not going to win this world-wide struggle for the minds of men by considering 'almost exclusively the manufacture of armaments and the sending of military supplies overseas. More and more, victory will lie in the hands of the group which can offer to the depressed masses of the world wherever they exist- yes, even in our own country-the prospect of better standards of life and freedom of association, freedom of thought, freedom of religion and all those freedoms which they might otherwise exchange for the mirage of better economic conditions, which indeed they would be more apt to exchange for a totalitarian dictatorship, and which would only lead the world into greater catastrophies than it has ever known.
I do not want to prolong the discussion, but I did want to say what I have said. I wanted to emphasize the economic side of this matter as it concerns Greece, Turkey and the backward countries of the world. We should not be thinking almost exclusively in terms of armies overseas, in terms of sending overseas great quantities of guns and military supplies. After all, we in Canada perhaps can best use our resources, both human and material, by supplying the world with the means to improve standards of life wherever they can be improved and in that way assist most to win the battle for democracy and freedom.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, this is a most important event, the approval of the protocol for the accession of Greece and Turkey into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Being a matter of so much importance it seems too bad that it had to come up so close to the end of the session. Otherwise I am quite sure that this chamber would have been filled with interested members. I am sure that if many hon. members are not here today to hear the minister and take part in this discussion it is not due to their lack of interest in such an important matter. I think it is due more to the fact that this is the tail-end of a session which has been interrupted by a Christmas holiday and many members are not able to be here. Otherwise I am quite certain that we would have had a most interesting debate by an interested membership of this house.
I am quite sure too that most members must realize the importance of the obligation

North Atlantic Treaty
which Canada is taking upon herself now by approving this protocol. I assume that since there has been so great an approach to unanimity of opinion today it will be approved unanimously. I hope it will. I do not know of any debate in the history of my membership in the House of Commons in which hon. members have been so near unanimity of view. I find myself in thorough agreement with all that has been said today. I find no exception whatever, and I want the house to know that that is the way we feel.
I think that we fully realize the seriousness of the obligations that devolve upon Canadians as a consequence of extending the area of these obligations into a territory that is different in many respects, strategically, geographically, socially and in every other way from the North Atlantic area. We think we have weighed most carefully the risks involved in approving the accession of Greece and Turkey against the advantages. I must say that as far as I was able to weigh the risks and the advantages with the information I had at my disposal I had to cast my lot on the side of the advantages, and I want to say that we thoroughly approve of the protocol and hope that this afternoon or evening the house will give its unanimous approval to it.
All through history Greece and Turkey have demonstrated that they are lovers of liberty. There have been cases where they have had a chance to demonstrate that they are lovers of liberty, 'that they are determined to preserve their liberties and to help preserve liberty throughout the world. For many years both of them, with the exception of a few intervals, have been traditionally friends of the Anglo-American people. I think they are now friends of the Anglo-American people, and the fact that they have indicated their acceptance of the invitation to become full members of NATO indicates that they have a friendly feeling toward us. I imagine that at least one of them, Turkey, might have been influenced to some degree by the near alienation, if I may put it that way, of some of the good feeling that existed in the Arab world prior to about four years ago. I believe that in the main there is every indication that Turkey has not been too seriously influenced in that regard and that it has friendly feelings toward the western nations.
Both of these nations have demonstrated that they are prepared to do their part to carry out their responsibilities as members of the United Nations. I listened very

attentively to what the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) had to say this morning. One thing struck me as very pertinent, and it is something upon which I have commented a good many times. There are too many nations that have accepted membership in the United Nations organization and are not prepared to measure up to the responsibilities that they have taken upon themselves. They have been long on talk and short on performance. I do not say that of Greece and Turkey. I think within the range of their competence and capacities they have discharged their responsibilities well.
When attending the United Nations assembly in 1947 and in 1950 I was struck by the seriousness with which the representatives of these countries took their duties, the way that they conducted themselves, and the attitude they had toward the obligations of membership in the United Nations. The very fact that they did not hesitate to do what they could in connection with the crisis in Korea, particularly Turkey, by sending assistance in the form of armed forces, indicates to the whole world that they do not take their membership in these international organizations lightly. Therefore I think we need have no fear about these two nations fulfilling their obligations if they become full members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
I said we had weighed the risks against the advantages and found that the balance was in favour of the advantages. Let us not overlook that there are risks involved in bringing these nations into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I am quite sure that our Canadian people must come to realize this, and I hope we can help them to realize it. There is no question about the rifeks. These nations are situated in a geographical area that is very close to countries that may become aggressors in another direction. There is no questioning the fact that strategically these two countries are in most important key positions. For many years Mr. Churchill has tried to get the world to understand how important the Mediterranean area is strategically in any conflict that may arise. A lot of people in the world have not heeded what Mr. Churchill has tried to make us understand.
The very fact that Russia has always looked to the west for an outlet through the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus makes Turkey, which has been for some years the guardian of the entrance to the Black Sea, of strategic importance beyond anything that we can emphasize here. So too the fact

that Greece is situated very close to the iron curtain countries, and has indeed in the past five years had very serious relations with some of her neighbours either wholly or partially behind the iron curtain, makes of that country a very important and key strategic area. We know that the whole Mediterranean area is the area toward which any aggressor, such as may exist in eastern countries, would cast their longing eyes. It has been said time and time again, and I think with perfect accuracy, that whoever controls the entrance to the Suez canal controls the most important strategic position in the world. We know that if Russia ever felt she could overcome the forces of the west one of the first moves she would make would be toward the Mediterranean area in the direction of the Suez canal country.
We must realize therefore that one of the risks involved in bringing Turkey and Greece into NATO is that any event in that area would bring us into a war. Indeed I think hon. members should recall that Russia has already made threats against Turkey. That in itself emphasizes the risk we are taking, but I think if the minister had a chance to speak his full mind today he would agree that perhaps we can overestimate the importance of that threat. Nevertheless it is a threat, and it is something we have to keep in our minds as we measure the responsibilities we are taking by approving this protocol. The speakers who have preceded me have emphasized the fact that we are going into an entirely new area. We do not know fully, I suppose, at this time, exactly what that may mean, but it certainly extends our obligations. Though we may say that the accession of Greece and Turkey will strengthen security everywhere, let us not overlook the fact that it takes us into some territories that we are not quite familiar with in many respects and might possibly engage us in conflict sooner than we might otherwise be engaged.
I thoroughly agree with those who say that the Canadian people should know the fullest possible measure of the obligations that they take upon themselves when they become parties to any treaty, this one included. The minister therefore should make clear to the Canadian people the full implications, as far as he knows them, of the accession of Greece and Turkey into NATO. Let me hasten to say this, however. I am not blaming the minister for not taking more time this morning. He realizes, as we all do, that the session is nearly at an end and that perhaps this is not the occasion on which he could launch into a full-scale exposition of world affairs. But I for one
North Atlantic Treaty
should like to have been able to sit down with the minister in a committee where I could ask him questions. I have in mind a thousand questions, about things that I am sure we should all like to know about, that I should like to get answered. I am sure that the members of the other place greatly enjoyed the splendid exposition he gave to them a few days back. I just saw snatches of the reports in the papers; but it would be something like that, it seems to me, that would be useful to us at this time. We should understand the full implications of all that we are doing. The Canadian people are entitled to know. How in the world can we expect them to join wholeheartedly in any international co-operative effort if they do not know what is going to be involved? I therefore cannot emphasize too strongly the importance of what my hon. friends who preceded me have both said, namely, that there should be no secrecy whatever, that the Canadian people should be taken into the full confidence of the minister and of the government, and that they should know exactly what is involved in this whole matter.
Along with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) I should like to say this. We should be careful to realize this. In his speech this morning the minister quoted Mr. Sulzberger, the editor of the New York Times, in a statement to the effect that we are now engaged in a long, difficult and expensive project that would carry us into many years ahead; and the price of liberty, he said, is high. Realizing that, as we must, I think we ought to be oareful to adopt within our own country and within NATO itself economic policies which will cushion just as far as possible the dislocating impact of the effort at rearmament, or perhaps I had better say the impact of defensive military preparation. I do not like to look upon the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in any respect as a war-making organization. It is indeed an international co-operative effort which I, along with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, hope is not going to be confined to military preparations. We ought to be doing a whole lot more than that, I admit. But let us make certain that as we proceed in this international effort at co-operation we do not take steps that will destroy our economic position as a nation. We could easily do that, when we realize that this is going to be a long, costly and difficult period ahead of us.
I am keenly interested in the questions that were asked by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon). I only wish we had time to go into committee and to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) a

North Atlantic Treaty
good many more questions. I certainly will listen with keen ears to the answers which he is prepared to give to the questions of the hon. member for Peel.
I do not see any use at this moment in extending my remarks. As I say, I have given the best thought of which I am capable to the full implications of what we are doing today; and I, speaking now for our Social Credit group here, say that we are favouring the approval by this parliament of the protocol, and that we would urge the minister to make available to the Canadian people- at different times as he goes along and as it becomes possible-all of the information that will enable them to judge of the full implications of the moves we are making, and to make clear to them what obligations they are taking upon themselves.
In conclusion, may I say this. In each step we take in extending the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, either in area or in more intensive policies, let us make sure- as sure as we possibly can be-that it is designed to increase the security of the free nations of the world and to make it possible for us to avoid war, if we can; but if we cannot avoid war, then to make certain that we are strong enough to repel any aggressor that might have an inclination to attack us.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what the minister has said and also to the excellent speeches made by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. G raydon'1, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), but I am not going to follow their lead. I am going to ask some questions of the minister and he may answer me later on.
In the first place he said that the Rome meeting was the eighth of the NATO council and that the work of the temporary council committee appointed by the council at its Ottawa meeting was examined, though in no official sense, because that work was not completed. He did not tell us what that work was. We may know what it was by a dispatch of the Associated Press which was published in the papers of the 27th of this month. I will translate that dispatch in a moment.
He added that the committee had the responsibility to match the requirements for defence and the resources of the separate members of the council which could be devoted to that defence, having regard to their political and economic capabilities. This is enormous. It is a decision of far-reaching importance to Canada as well as to the other

countries represented on the council. He said in a rather jocular vein that it is a "burdensharing exercise". The burden may be heavy, and we are interested in knowing what it is. I hope the minister will be more explicit in that regard. Then he added that the executive committee of this committee of twelve, also popularly known as the "three wise men", have made a report to the committee of twelve which will give final consideration to it in Paris on January 15. There are a lot of committees, and one reason why I was in favour of NATO was that all the nations were on the same footing apparently, while they were not in the United Nations Organization because the security council was deciding matters pertaining to all. But in this case I thought that all the countries of NATO were on the same footing. Now there is a committee of "three wise men" who report to the committee of twelve which is not the whole Atlantic council. It is quite embarrassing. One leads to the other. Perhaps it is a good thing not to make decisions right away. Perhaps it is good to temporize as did Fabius Cunctator; he used to temporize, to adjourn things until later on. Perhaps it is a wise move. I am not ready to say that it is wrong.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: He has had
a lot of imitators.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, but they are dead.


Mr. Brooks:: Not all of them.


Jean-François Pouliot: There may be some at these international organizations, but I do not happen to know them.
The report will be referred to the NATO council in Lisbon in February, and the minister added it is not desirable to say anything more about it because it has not been finally submitted to the government. Then he spoke of western Germany being included in the European defence force, and stated that important and far-reaching decisions regarding the defence of Europe would be taken at Lisbon. He spoke of peace with western Germany, which must be an easy thing because we have exchanged ambassadors with western Germany. The representative of Canada in Germany had his status raised from a minister to an ambassador, and we have a German gentleman here as ambassador of that country. The minister said that at Rome they also discussed the question of the reorganization of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization which is becoming, in a sense, rather unwieldy. He referred to the streamlining of the whole organization.
We had the League of Nations, and it is dead. We had the United Nations, and you

know it did not work. We had NATO, and NATO is to be streamlined into a new organization. Where it will all finish, I do not know. Sometimes I complained about the way things were handled at these gatherings and everyone thought that I was not orthodox, that I was speaking about things of which I had no knowledge. Events proved that I was right, because nothing was good enough. There is a perpetual change in that kind of business. Then there was the interim report from the committee of five on nonmilitary co-operation, and that will be discussed at Lisbon. The minister did not tell the house what the vote of Canada was in the contest between Greece and Byelorussia for election to the United Nations security council. The minister should have no secrets from the house. If he does not want to make the matter public, he could easily have the galleries cleared. It is not a complicated affair because there is a rule of the house to that effect.
Then the minister said that big questions were not decided in Rome. It was an interim meeting. The member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) said that they cannot all be interim meetings. I say that perhaps it is a good thing to have only interim meetings so that matters may come to shape in the right way. We should know what is going on, and again if it is of importance that the information should not be given to the public at large, the minister could inform the house in camera. There was another thing in the minister's statement that struck me, and I have just a few facts to mention. The overlapping membership and possible military planning in building up a separate Middle East or Mediterranean pact would invoke problems of inclusion and exclusion which would not be settled easily. These matters are always settled easily when good will is shown. At the present time we have signed a protocol for the admission of Turkey and Greece to NATO. Turkey is a great country and the people are wonderful diplomats. So far they have been doing very well, and they are honest people. The Greeks are courageous and would be an asset to us.
In my humble opinion, if we are to have an Atlantic pact, the more members we have the better. If we are to include Turkey and Greece amongst the Atlantic pact nations, why not stop and take Spain on the way? What is the objection to Spain? It would be easy to have them with us, and they would be an asset. Some people are afraid to talk about Spain. Spain would be a loyal ally. There is no reason for not having Spain. We go as far away as Greece and Turkey, and the
North Atlantic Treaty
more nations we have the better. I am in favour of it. It extends the area of our responsibility, but the thing deserves consideration. Moreover, Greece and Turkey were invited to become full members of the North Atlantic council, and I am sure that if the invitations were extended to Spain she would accept at once. Not so long ago President Truman changed his mind about Spain and gave her a large amount of money to have 'improved conditions in that country. If Tito is good enough for us, Franco would not be any worse.
Then, the protocol does not extend the nature of our obligations under the North Atlantic treaty, but it does extend the area of our obligations. It cannot extend the nature, because the nature is specified in the treaty, as the hon. gentleman knows very well. The area is extended, but it means that two other countries will be joined with us in that pact. The minister added it is more theoretical than real, but an aggression on those countries would mean world war III. This is well understood. On the other hand, the more powerful the organization is the less danger of war. It is for that reason I am pleased to see Turkey and Greece become members of NATO. I hope that Portugal will follow, then Spain, Italy and the other countries. How is it we have NATO meeting in Rome? Rome is willing to oome into the North Atlantic council and there would be no Russian veto, but the veto would come from England and France, especially against Spain. This is a time when we should be careful.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer again to what Mr. Eden said during his tour of the United States. It was published in an Associated Press dispatch dated Chicago, August 20. It stated that Mr. Eden found the Atlantic pact was inadequate to protect the western world against the communist menace. Then, he suggested a larger and more general organization which would take into account the demands of each front, would make a survey of the resources, and would seek to allocate them according to the needs. It would be a supergovernment. He said that he did not think NATO was adequate from that point of view. And then he added: "During 'the war", declared Eden, "several of us were hoping that the United Nations would serve as a practical example as well as a precept toward unity." That is Wendell Willkie's key, one world, one government, one supergovernment. What the minister did not mention in his statement was put in a dispatch of the Associated Press of December 27. I have not the English text, but I will translate it as well as I can. It is a matter of supreme importance to all

North Atlantic Treaty
Canadians as well as to the other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It is the three big ones who want to control the whole organization. If we have no peace it is because of the setting up of the United Nations by the big ones, by Stettinius, a banker, who thought that the world could be organized like the management of a bank. I will not comment on that; I will just refer to it. The dispatch reads:
London, - Associated Press.
It is announced that the three great powers have presently plans to form a super international government, the mission of which would be to direct the affairs of the North Atlantic treaty organization. We foresee that Prime Minister Churchill will discuss with President Truman early in January certain suggestions to enlarge the purpose of that organism, composed of twelve nations. Some of the modifications studied in the United States are to the effect that France and Great Britain would transform the council of acting ministers of foreign affairs into a permanent council of ministers, whose task would be to study fully the economic, military and production problems amongst the allied nations.
We are told also that all the agencies of NATO, actually dispersed in the three capitals, would be put under one roof in Paris, close to the general headquarters of General Eisenhower. We would also name a secretary-general whose powers, prestige and role would be equal to that of Eisenhower. The extra governmental cabinet as proposed will not have supernational powers, but it could act on its own when the situation calls for prompt decisions. Each country of the alliance will keep its right of veto. Naturally, all the questions are still something of a project.
In the first place, the three great powers will have to come to an agreement among themselves on the work to be done. Then they will have to sell their ideas to the other nine nations of the Atlantic pact.
It will take some time to make a decision, and that is why it may be a good thing that no decision has been reached yet on such important problems. The article goes on, and I will cut it short:
The changes foreseen would make of NATO the central responsible authority for the solution of the great economic, political and military problems of the western world.
Well, Mr. Speaker, it is not without a great deal of apprehension that I have read it. I am satisfied to support this government, and I appreciate its collective wisdom, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) is included in that. I understand his difficulties. But I do not want this parliament to become a rubber stamp of any supergovernment, of any world government such as that foreseen by Wendell Willkie, Eden, Churchill and others; and I hope that when Mr. Churchill comes to Ottawa he will be well received, but that nobody will forget that he is the leader of the Tory party of Great Britain.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: May I move the
adjournment of the debate until later this day? I have consulted the leaders of the opposition parties and they have agreed. I would ask now that we proceed with item No 6 on the order paper.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE ACT


James Garfield Gardiner: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 1939, to exclude certain areas of land from the provisions of section one of chapter forty-seven of the statutes of 1950 and thus render such areas eligible for assistance.
He said: Mr. Speaker, when notice was given of the resolution some days ago I departed from the usual practice, with the consent of the house, and gave an explanation of what was intended to be done under the measure which we proposed to introduce. I did that, expecting that the house might have ended at an earlier date, and that it might have been necessary to proceed with this resolution in a number of stages at one sitting of the house. The situation has not changed in that regard. We are now hoping that we are in the last sitting of the house, and this is still in the resolution stage, so that if we are going to enact the legislation it would be necessary to put it through about three different stages this afternoon in a rather short period of time. I am sure that hon. members will expect some explanation as to why it is important to do that at this late stage in this session.
As hon. members know, we have on the statute books the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. This act makes it possible for payments to be made in townships where there are eight bushels or less to the acre of a yield in any particular year. That, generally, is the principle underlying the act. There are other details that I need not go into at this time.
Then, in 1950 we amended the act to say that lands, which had been dealt with by a governing body, whether it be a provincial government, the federal government or even a municipality, lands that were held by these governments still, as of the 31st December, 1940, were not to be considered eligible for payment under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. The intent of that at the time was to
[Mr. Pouliot.l

exclude lands which it had been possible for persons to homestead over a very considerable term of years, or possible for them to secure by purchase or otherwise over a considerable term of years. It was thought that if it had been possible, from some time back in the 1870's or 1880's down to 1940, to secure these lands, and no one had seen fit to take these lands over, then it was quite natural to suppose that they were submarginal lands and not fit for cultivation in the ordinary sense. For that reason, if they were put back in cultivation as a result of action on the part of local governments or even by this government, they should be put back on terms which would not make necessary the payment of prairie farm assistance. That, in general terms, is the provision of the amendment of 1950.
When that matter was before the committee on agriculture it was pointed out by members from the northern parts of the three prairie provinces, and particularly members from the northern sections of Alberta and Saskatchewan-and I should enlarge upon that by saying that the area extends from Saskatchewan over into Manitoba-that there were areas along the northern part which had not been put up for homesteading, had not been available to the public over a period of years, but had been brought under the homesteading provisions or in some other way made available to settlers since 1940. It was said that under the act those lands would be subject to payment of the one per cent on any grain delivered, and because of that they should be made eligible if, as time went along, it was indicated that they were entitled to payments.
As the minister in charge I conducted the bill through the committee. I stated at the time that the government admitted the justice of that claim, but we found it difficult to draw a line without first having some experience. For that reason I suggested that the legislation go through in the terms in which it was submitted to the committee, and afterward to the house; and I gave an undertaking in committee, which I read to the house when the resolution was introduced on November 14. I shall read it again, in order that it may be clearly before hon. members at this time. I said to the committee:
I can give more assurance to my hon. friends.
By that I meant more assurance that day than I could the day before.
Since we met this morning and before the meeting this afternoon, we had a meeting of council and
94699-162J
Prairie Farm Assistance Act
I discussed this matter with council, and they agreed with what I suggested.
And then in a few words I repeat the suggestion.
They think it should be retroactive in order to make the check that we want to make; and they are also committed to the undertaking I have given to the committee that if we find it is creating hardships which should not be created under the spirit of the act, we shall have amending legislation next year.
That undertaking was given to the committee at the time; and we have had two years' experience since that under the amendment. I just wish to give the committee the result of that experience, in order to show that it is very definitely indicated now that there is an area about which we should legislate.
In 1950, the year the legislation was passed, as a result of the operations of that year it was found that in the Alberta-Peace river bloc, which extends over into British Columbia, there were 1,628 quarter sections that were excluded because of the amendment we made in 1950, where payments otherwise would have been made. In that same area in 1951 there were 3,689 quarter sections. Of those 1,600 may be the same that were excluded in 1950; but it means that there were some 1,600 the first year and 3,689 the second year. In the Edmonton area, part of which is north of township 60-and practically all these quarter sections noted are north of township 60, even in the Edmonton area-in
1950	there were 392 and in 1951 there were 1,954 quarter sections.
Just to indicate the difference as between those areas and the areas with regard to which we were legislating and about which we were attempting to do something, in the Calgary area in the southern part of Alberta in 1950 there were only 87 quarter sections excluded, and in 1951 there were only 112. That plainly indicates that the area north is in a different class and should be treated differently in this regard. In other words, payments should be available to a very considerable number of those people. In order to indicate the Saskatchewan position, where the greater part of the lands are located, in 1950 the number of quarter sections that would be excluded by this section was 56, while in 1951 it was 978. That is, the figure is considerably higher in
1951	than it was in 1950. But when one looks at the map there is not an accumulation of these quarter sections in any one particular section, even in the north, where you could attribute it to the same reasons that can be given for the northern part of Alberta and the Peace river section of British Columbia.

Prairie Farm Assistance Act
So what we are suggesting is that one group of farmers in the northern part of Alberta have already been required to wait a whole year for their payments. The payments to the 1,628 quarter sections in 1950 would have been due in December of 1950, so they have not had their payments for a year. The payment of these other quarter sections will be due in December of this year, 1951. If the legislation were not passed at this session, but were carried over into the next session, they would be denied their payments for that length of time. The suggestion therefore in the legislation is that in British Columbia and Alberta we withdraw the effect of the amendment of 1950 and make payments possible to these farmers who live north of township 60. That is township 60, and north from there, we find from checking the map carefully, does take care of these persons who are concerned.
When I explained this at the resolution stage the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) raised the question of possible discrimination. As I explained at that time, I had included in it the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. But on further discussion of the matter it was agreed that we could not settle Saskatchewan and Manitoba at present because as these figures I have quoted would indicate there is no development of any district, in Saskatchewan or Manitoba, at the moment that can be dealt with in the same way we are proposing to deal with in Alberta and British Columbia. What I do wish to state, however, is that the decision given to the committee in 1950 still applies in so far as Saskatchewan and Manitoba are concerned. The position we took then was that until an area developed where payment ought to be made, it was most difficult to draw lines, and we should allow that to develop before drawing any lines.
What I wish to say now is that exactly the same position continues to exist in connection with Saskatchewan and Manitoba as is being dealt with in Alberta and British Columbia, with all the facts before us in connection with the matter. In other words, if our experience in administering the act indicates that a district develops in Saskatchewan or Manitoba which has the same rights as now exist in these areas in Alberta and British Columbia, it will be dealt with in the same way. That is to say, the passing of this legislation at this time will not lessen, the claims of those in Saskatchewan or Manitoba, and therefore it is not discriminatory in any way. It strengthens their position. The fact that we had already dealt with it in Alberta and British Columbia


on, that basis should make it eminently clear that if a similar situation develops in the future in other provinces it will be dealt with in the same manner.
My main objective in suggesting that this be put through at this session is what I mentioned at the beginning, namely, that from our examination of the circumstances surrounding all these lands it is evident farmers there are entitled to payment. We suggest that if the legislation were not put through this session making that payment possible there would be considerably more delay in getting the money forward to these farmers. We therefore suggest that the legislation be put through the several stages and sent over to the Senate so that it can be passed by them and assented to today.


Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the house are agreed that this legislation should be put forward at this session. I intend to reserve any further remarks I have to make until the bill is before us, which I understand will be in a -few minutes.


James Garfield Gardiner: I intended to read the one pertinent line so that every member would have it in his mind. There are printed copies of the bill available but probably they have not been distributed. The only exception is in this part:
(vi) lands lying north of township sixty in each of the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take one minute to thank the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) for bringing forward this bill at this session and to tell him that we deeply appreciate the fact that he has kept the promise he made in 1950 when an amendment was made to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. We want him to know that there are quite a large number of people in northern Alberta and British Columbia, in the Peace river bloc, whose faith will be revived as a result of this legislation. We want it known too that we who represent northern Alberta's constituencies will certainly support amendments to the act if areas in Saskatchewan and Manitoba should at some future time develop the same kind of situation that we have had-in the Peace river country in the past few years. We do not want there to be discriminatory legislation at any time.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Gardiner thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 46, to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 1939.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


James Garfield Gardiner: By leave, I should like to move the second reading.


Percy Ellis Wright: Mr. Speaker, at this point I should like to say a few words with regard to the present bill and its implications so far as we in the northern part of Saskatchewan are concerned. The Prairie Farm Assistance Act was passed in 1939 to take care of a serious situation which had developed in western Canada during the 1930's. Since that time I believe some six amendments have been made to the act as the government found it necessary to make it more operative and more easily administered.
Up until 1950 the amendments were mostly to extend the act and make it more operative. In 1950 an amendment was passed, which we are now amending, with regard to a certain area in the northern parts of Alberta and British Columbia. That particular amendment was restrictive in its application. In other words, it took out of payment certain lands which were described as having been the property of the crown in 1940 and which had been placed in cultivation after that date, either through sale, lease or by other methods. As a result a number of people were brought under the act and have been under the act since 1940 but they found themselves in a position where they could not receive any benefits.
There was a certain amount of logic in the amendment as it applied to certain areas in Alberta _ and Saskatchewan which lay within the old Palliser triangle. By the way, those lands should never have been placed under cultivation. However, during the first war we and our allies were greatly in need of wheat and this land was brought into cultivation.
The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act was passed, I believe in 1935, and an attempt was made to withdraw certain of these lands. In our opinion the 1950 amendment to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act was not only restrictive, it was discriminatory. Those of us from Saskatchewan felt that it was a slap at the administration of the land policy of the provincial governments concerned. It indicated that the Department of Agriculture felt that the provincial administrations had not been doing a good job. Therefore, there were certain of us who resented it.
We believed that the provincial governments in Alberta and Saskatchewan were endeavouring to develop land utilization policies which would be for the benefit, not
Prairie Farm Assistance Act only of the provinces but of the dominion as a whole. The original amendment as brought in was much more restrictive than would appear from the act. When it was placed before the agricultural committee the minister made certain amendments to exempt several areas in the provinces.
If the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act are to be operated sucessfully, it can only be done with the co-operation of the provincial governments. The sooner we understand that and the sooner those in Ottawa recognize the necessity for co-operation the more efficient and beneficial the operation of these acts will be in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba. The position we took at that time is now proved to be correct, because the minister is introducing an amendment which in effect exempts all lands north of township 60 in the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia from the operation of the amendment passed in 1950. To be fair, so far as the province of Manitoba is concerned lands north of township 30 should be exempted. In the province of Saskatchewan lands north of township 40 as far west as the third meridian and lands north of township 50 from the third meridian to the Alberta border should be exempted. They would be the same type of land as is affected by this amendment concerning the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia.
The minister has undertaken that if there should be an area in the northern part of Saskatchewan, and I presume in Manitoba too, which is affected later in the same way as the area in the northern part of Alberta, further amendments will be made to the act so that payments can be made in those areas to those who may be affected. He has placed certain figures on the record with respect to the number of parcels of land affected. In Alberta in 1950 there were 1,628 quarter sections and in 1951, 3,689 quarter sections. He has indicated that in the province of Saskatchewan in 1950 there were only 56 quarter sections affected and 978 in 1951. I do not know whether he has any information to indicate whether the 978 quarter sections in the province of Saskatchewan are in the northern or southern part of the province. We are prepared to allow the bill to go through without too much debate and without moving an amendment on the understanding already given by the minister that if a similar area should be affected in the province of Saskatchewan at a later date an amendment will be introduced to provide for payments in that area.
I should like the assurance of the minister that it will not be necessary for the same number of parcels of land to be affected before

Prairie Farm Assistance Act such an amendment will be brought in. This year, when we are making this amendment, there are 3,689 quarter sections of land affected in the province of Alberta. It might well be that only 1,000 quarter sections would be affected in a similar area in the province of Saskatchewan in another year, and if there were 1,000 or even a smaller number I do not see why they should not receive payment under the act provided they otherwise qualify. I hope the minister will give us some assurance that this is his intention, and that he is not going to wait until there are three of four thousand parcels of land barred from payment under the act before he makes a similar amendment applicable to the province of Saskatchewan. With that assurance we are prepared to allow the bill to go through without moving an amendment, although we had intended to introduce one which would bring similar areas in the province of Saskatchewan in line for payment under the act.


James Garfield Gardiner: I thought I gave that assurance when I was speaking, but in case I did not I give it now.


Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention whatever of holding up this legislation. In faot I am wholly in favour of it, and if and when similar circumstances arise in Saskatchewan or Manitoba, or both, then if I am here, and I hope to be, I shall be equally glad to support the claims of the other provinces. At the resolution stage the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in describing the area affected stated that it was township 60 and all that portion north thereof, but the bill reads, "lands lying north of township 60". When we get into committee I should like the minister to introduce an amendment inserting the words "and including" after the word "of" in the ninth line of the bill. Perhaps the minister has not noticed that but in its present form it excludes township 60 which is not the intention of the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-No award.
Solon Earl Low: Would the minister care to comment on the point raised by the hon. member for Battle River? I think it was the intention, as we understood his statement at the resolution stage, that the bill would be amended to include township 60 and those lands north. Perhaps the minister would comment on that now.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, I must admit it was the intention to take in township 60 which would


make it necessary to have the section read, "lands lying north of the south boundary of township 60".


The Chairman:: Shall the clause carry?


Major James William Coldwell: It has to be amended.


James Garfield Gardiner: If you will put it through with the amendment-


Major James William Coldwell: You have to move an amendment.


Alphonse Fournier: I move:
That clause 1 of Bill 46 be amended by adding to clause 1 in line 9 after the words "lands lying north of" the words "the south boundary of."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Herridge:: I am all in favour of this type of legislation. I understand it has been of great benefit to many grain farmers on the prairies, but I should like to ask the minister a question. On what guiding principle does the government base its decision to assist grain growers who lack a crop and ignore the rest of the farmers of Canada who possibly do not have crops? For instance, there are the fruit growers, beet growers, tobacco growers and dairymen. Will the minister explain the guiding principle upon which the legislation is based?


James Garfield Gardiner: I did when I introduced it, and got the consent of the house on the condition that I was not to go into that; but in a'few words the reason for the legislation as it now exists has to do with the drought that extended over seven years in the prairie provinces.


Solon Earl Low: On a contributory basis.


Mr. Knighi:: Would the minister give us
roughly the location of the 978 quarter sections in Saskatchewan?


James Garfield Gardiner: I would have to go over the whole map. They are spread over the map in small groups.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: That is the point I wanted to know about.


James Garfield Gardiner: They are small groups spread all over the province extending from the United States boundary line northward.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I understand the desire to get the legislation passed at the present time. Could we have the assurance of the minister that he will deal with my question next session during discussion of the agriculture estimates?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am quite sure that I shall have to.
Section as amended agreed to.

Section 2 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Saturday, December 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fournier (Hull) for the second reading of Bill No. 26, to amend the Public Works Act.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, when this matter was before the house previously, I adjourned the debate. I have some reason to understand that perhaps the minister wishes to make a statement now.


Alphonse Fournier: I will close the debate on second reading.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Just a
minute. I want to know, Mr. Speaker, whether I shall be allowed to continue, because my understanding and hope was that the minister would make such statement as he wanted to make now, not a speech, that I might then finish my speech, and then the minister would close the debate. Is that the position, Mr. Speaker?


George Alexander Drew: May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that with the consent of the house the minister indicate the wording of the amendment he will later move; because if, as there is reason to believe, the amendment is in accordance with the view that has been expressed by the official opposition, it would preclude unnecessary debate.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, I am ready to agree to that procedure. I had a lengthy speech prepared on this matter, but I think, at this late hour, I will not take long. If I had time I would spend most of it in thanking the hon. gentlemen who participated in this debate for all the kind words they said to me. If I took them as a mirror, I would not recognize myself. At all events I was impressed by the arguments that were made by the members who spoke on this question. I still believe in the tender system, and I reaffirm that belief. Only after listening to all those kind speeches did I find that there were dangers in the amendment I was proposing. If their interpretation of this amendment had reached the officials of my department and they thought they were being made allpowerful to deal with public works, without any restraint, I certainly would oppose that
Public Works Act
position. Even if the contractors themselves thought that with this amendment they could come to my office and say, "Now you can do this, why do you not give me this contract? I can do it as well as the other party", I still would be in a bad position. Even members on this side of the house seem to have that opinion also.
I took a lot of time meditating and cogitating on what was said, and I thought I should cancel the proposed amendment and substitute for it another one. Just to show how this thing works, may I say that while we were discussing this matter the Canadian Construction Association, which is the body most interested in this section of the Public Works Act, sent to my office proposals for amendments. Just to show the house what they think, here are the proposed amendments they suggested. As to paragraph (a) of section 36, they would keep that pressing emergency clause as it was. As to paragraph (b) they say:
(b)	of work having a value not in excess of $25,000 and which, from its nature, can be more expeditiously and economically executed by the employees of the department.
And as to (c):
(c)	where the estimated cost of the work is less than $25,000 and it appears to the minister, in view of the nature of the work, that it is not advisable to invite tenders.
(d)	in work of "secret category".
That is without any limit.
(e)	of work of conversion or alteration nature, and the minister is satisfied that a call for tenders by public tender is impracticable and that the public interest can best be served by entering into a contract for the execution thereof without inviting such tenders.
Even reading that I thought I would have exorbitant powers, and I thought I should have an amendment based on what was suggested in the house. I will read the amendment that I will ask my colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to move when we get into committee. It reads as follows:
(c) where the estimated cost of the work is less than fifteen thousand dollars, and it appears to the minister, in view of the nature of the work, that it is not advisable to invite tenders.
That is a change from $5,000 to $15,000, Even a member of the opposition suggested that I might fix an amount which could go up to $20,000. I am being more reasonable even than certain members of the opposition. I am asking for less power than they were ready to give to me. I do not see that there can be any serious objection to this amendment, and I hope that the Senate will consider it in the way we will in the house.

Public Works Act


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, how true were the remarks of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) this morning when he said that the minister had a gift for making, I was going to say an unsatisfactory explanation-but why should I call anything about this unsatisfactory?-in a satisfactory manner. I am sure the minister will understand that it is only the strongest sense of duty on my part which makes me feel that, notwithstanding the Christmas season and notwithstanding the regard we have for the minister, it is absolutely essential that the record should make completely clear what has happened.


Alphonse Fournier: That will be for future reference.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: For future reference we may hope, yes. I am sure the minister will not disagree with me that it is, let us say, an absolutely unprecedented explanation of an amendment. If we assess it properly it is really, as I think the Germans call it, colossal. What I mean by that is that it is something super. The real reason for changing, according to the minister, is that there is a danger that our arguments made two weeks ago, while not necessarily in themselves right, nevertheless might persuade the members of his staff who thereby might get an exaggerated idea of their power, and as a result, adherence to the principle of tender which the minister was at pains to support two weeks ago might in fact not be maintained.
As I say, I think it is only fair, in the interests of the record and in the interests of the opposition, that we try to set out-and I will do so briefly-exactly what was proposed; in other words, that we take stock of this situation. While the minister has dealt with it in an extremely delicate manner, the fact is-and I am sure it was not the minister who wanted it; I am sure it was one of his wicked partners-that there was a try-on here to get something through which really was quite basically in contradiction with our whole method of doing business. I want to make that very clear. I can do it by briefly reading the section as it was, and then reading the amendment which was proposed. In the section as it appeared, first of all subsection (a) says that tenders may not be needed in cases of pressing emergency, and that is carried into the new section, almost word for word. Subsection (b) reads:
(b) in which from the nature of the work it can be more expeditiously and economically executed by the officers and servants of the department; or
[Mr. Fournier (Hull) .1
And that is carried into the new section. Subsection (c), as the minister has read, says:
(c) where the estimated cost of the work is less than five thousand dollars and it appears to the minister, in view of the nature of the work, that it is not advisable to invite tenders.
The minister's discretion is strictly limited to $5,000. I want to read subsection (c) as it stands in the proposed amendment, that is the one which is now amended. It reads:
(c) the minister is satisfied that the nature of the work renders a call for tenders by public advertisement impracticable and that the public interest can best be served by entering into a contract for the execution thereof without inviting such tenders.
It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that there is no limitation of any kind. It is not only the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier), but the rank and file of the ministers, just the ordinary ministers, who can come along and do the same thing. I believe any of the ministers could let tenders in this way without limit, except that they have to satisfy their own minds and we know how easy that is.
From the outset we said we regarded this bill as vicious. If I may quote a very great authority, namely myself, I said it was like throwing down the drain the practice of generations. Really one could hardly see anything further that could be done, unless one day the government turned up to say that parliament would only meet once every five years. After all, the C.B.C. gets a five-year lease on life, so why should they not call us back only once every five years? It is hard to see how much further they could have gone in setting aside the proper position of parliament and in arrogating more power to the executive. I do say seriously that it shows how far arbitrary power will go when it gets under a full head of steam. There is hardly anything we can imagine which would go further than this.
I must say that I thought we had seen the limit before, because there have been some rather wide stretches of power requested here. But if anyone had told me that the government would come in with a measure of this kind-not for defence production, because we are accustomed to broad powers for defence production-I would have said, "Just go and roll your hoop." I imagine that this section was really brought on through desire to emulate the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe), who has such wonderful powers about which he tells us so often with such pride. I can imagine that it was really brought about by that kind of competition, the desire to keep up with the Howes.
We must however give the government credit, because they have come through now

in a very handsome manner. They have made an amendment in line with what we advised. How wise they would be, and how much trouble they would save, if they accepted all our advice.
This is not an amendment; it is a repentance, a recantation. This is not a retreat; it is an absolute rout. We in the opposition should seriously thank the government for one thing. I do not suppose that for a long time there has ever been a case where the real function of the opposition has been so well and clearly demonstrated. Within the last few days we have been trying to persuade the government not to pursue another foolish course. We did not succeed. We shall have to let time take its course. We have to let the people become educated. There will be an education of the farmers within a few days-by reason of information given last evening.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Are you
cautioning me, Mr. Speaker? I always defer to your slightest wish, as you know. What I wanted to say-perhaps there was a slight digression-was that the government has given us a wonderful chance to demonstrate the real function of the opposition. Within the last few days in the other case there has been some complaint that we were taking a little too much time in trying to get the public to understand the subject. In this case we stood up to the government. I want to give all the opposition credit, because they were all with us. This subject was rather simple, and it was not easy to confuse the public. The public understood, and what have they done? They have come to the assistance of the opposition and we have the results which we all know.
I do not want to waste the time of the house. It is repugnant to me to say anything which would seem like glorifying ourselves but I do say, and it is a conservative statement, that this may well rank as a classic case. I hope it may even get into the text books as a classic example of the power of the opposition to prevent injurious legislation.
It may also remind the people, Mr. Speaker, that the way of the opposition is not always easy. People do not always rate the opposition as high as they should. It may serve to give people a better understanding of the true function of parliament, particularly if the press is interested and brings it to the attention of the people.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I hope this incident may have the effect of raising the whole institution of parliament. People are often apt to talk about us as if we were just putting in time, as if there were no means whatever
Public Works Act
of influencing the government, and are apt to say public opinion cannot do anything. I hope this case may stand in the record as a classic example, showing that public influence can still-I was going to say in the twinkling of an eye-actually in the space of two weeks, bring a great!? and powerful!? government to its knees.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Tenders to be invited for works.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: There is just one point I want to bring to the minister's attention- In the old act the word "or" comes at the end of subsection (a) and the end of subsection (b). I point out that in the new section there is no "or" at the end of subsection (a), and I suggest that that creates an entirely unexpected situation. Surely that will mean that (a) and (b) have to be read together, and that cannot be the intention. Does the minister not agree?


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Chairman, I shall ask my colleague the Minister of Agriculture to move an amendment to subsection (a) by adding the word "or" after the word "interest".


James Garfield Gardiner: I so move.


George Alexander Drew: And subclause (b) also?


Alphonse Fournier: It has it.


George Alexander Drew: That is right.


James Garfield Gardiner: I move:
That clause 1 be amended by deleting subsection C of section 36 of the Public Works Act as it appears therein, and by substituting the following:
"C. Where the estimated cost of the work is less than fifteen thousand dollars, and it appears to the minister, in view of the nature of the work, that it is not advisable to invite tenders."


Mr. McLure:: Just before the amendment carries I should like to say this with regard to tenders. Last year a similar bill with regard to tendering was brought into the house, which had to do with the postal act. It gives the department too much absolute power to-let contracts without calling for tenders.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Below a thousand dollars.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: It does not make any difference whether it is below or above; the inequity is right there.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. That is not relevant at all to the present bill.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I will deal with this as it is. When you do away with tendering you are getting back to the old system of political

Public Works Act
patronage. We all know that is an excessively costly way of doing business. Only in the case of an emergency should any contract be let by the Department of Public Works without calling for tenders. We know that if tenders are called and properly handled the public can make a bid to do work, and when they make a bid the department gets the work done better and at a lower cost to the taxpayers of the country. But if we start in and let these contracts, with the officials of the department to judge whether or not they should be let, then it is purely political patronage, and I do not think the bill should pass this house at this time, even if it is the closing of the session, without there being a little more control instead of a reversion to political patronage in the letting of contracts, just as was done in reference to the matter I spoke about a moment ago, namely contracts for rural mail delivery.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Before this amendment
passes I want to say that we in this group are very pleased that the minister has recognized the soundness of the arguments of the opposition with respect to the necessity for a limitation in this section. I think the amount suggested, namely $15,000, is very reasonable. Anyone having a knowledge of construction at all will agree with that. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that I have been fairly closely associated with construction projects throughout the years. While I can recognize the dangers of patronage, and I am opposed to patronage, I know the great difficulties that district engineers have in proceeding with work under present conditions. I am in favour of a considerable amount of flexibility and placing in the hands of the district engineers more power than they have today to make immediate decisions. I know that important work has been delayed because the engineers have had to refer to Ottawa and could not make a decision on the ground to buy certain materials, or to get certain work done, because the man who was willing to do it at a certain price could not do it at a later date, and so on. I think that has to be considered when we are dealing with public works tenders and public works projects. We in this group are very pleased to see this amendment; we think it is most satisfactory.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Mr. McLure.l

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that we have time to take up this little Bill No. 15, which concerns privileges and immunities in respect of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I understand that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) has consulted with members of the opposition, who seem to have no serious objection to bringing it on at the present time. If it were to bring about a long debate we would have to withdraw it to come back to NATO. It has been before a committee of the house, and it is now to go to the committee of the whole. Second reading has been given to the bill and it has been reported back from the committee on external affairs. If I can have the agreement of the house we will [DOT] proceed with the item.



NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION


Lester Bowles Pearson: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 15, to provide for privileges and immunities in respect of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Gordon Graydon: I have only one question to ask; I asked a number of them in the committee. The minister was away when the committee sat and did not have an opportunity to answer this question. It has to do with the NATO organization itself. In connection with decisions made by the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in council, does there have to be unanimity before a decision is arrived at and a judgment given?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, that is so. No decision has been taken, or indeed I suppose no decision could be taken, in the North Atlantic council which was not concurred in by all of its members.


Gordon Graydon: I have raised the question because some people took umbrage at my saying there was a veto in NATO. Apparently that is really what it amounts to.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Government House, Ottawa, December 29, 1951
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Thibaudeau Rinfret, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber at seven o'clock p.m. today, December 29, for the purpose of proroguing the fifth session of the twenty-first parliament.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute,
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General
[Later]:


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General will proceed to the Senate at 6.15 p.m. instead of seven o'clock as previously announced.



NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson:
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the protocol to the North Atlantic treaty on the accession of Greece and Turkey, signed by Canada at London on October 17, 1951, and that this house do approve the same.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say only a word or two on this resolution, not to ask questions and certainly not to make any new suggestions, but just because I find the occasion not only an important one but, in a way, a rather moving one.
I should like to say just a word or two about these two nations which are now to be associated with us in this new way. It touches the imagination, first of all geographically, when one realizes that the north Atlantic is now being extended through the straits of Gibraltar and two thousand miles through the Mediterranean and the Aegean to Turkey and Greece. As the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) said this morning, when we think of those countries, we think of them as being close to the danger, and feeling a realism about it which perhaps it is hard for us always to feel.
Then I should like to say just a word about what might be called the historic side. First of all, Turkey: sometimes we have been in alliance with Turkey, and sometimes in opposition. But in whichever quality we had to do with them it was the testimony of all, whether friend or enemy, that they were
North Atlantic Treaty
brave and chivalrous. I remember well in the first great war that those who fought against them in the peninsula always spoke of them as gentlemen.
And when we come to Greece, none of us can forget that our whole civilization owes more than we can ever express to Greece. I would like to read just a sentence from, I suppose, the greatest exposition ever made of what we owe to the Greeks. It was not made for that purpose. It was made hundreds of years before Christ by a great Greek speaking over the graves of those who had fallen in war. He describes in a sentence or two the civilization from which we have taken so much and by which we now live. This is the speech put into the mouth of Pericles by the great Greek historian Thucydides, where he says, speaking of Athens:
For we enjoy a form of government which does not copy the laws of our neighbours; but we are ourselves rather a pattern to others than imitators of them. In name, from its not being administered for the benefit of the few, but of the many, it is called a democracy; but with regard to its laws, all enjoy equality, as concerns their private differences; while with regard to public rank, according as each man has reputation for any thing, he is preferred for public honours, not so much from consideration of party, as of merit; nor, again, on the ground of poverty, while he is able to do the state any good service, is he prevented by the obscurity of his position.
Coming to more modern days we remember what the Greeks endured in the autumn of 1940 and from then on. We remember how they resisted what looked like an overwhelming force, how they fought on through the war, and endured and suffered in the war years and after those years. Then, in these latest days of all, there is fighting in Korea which again they share with us, and where the Turks notably have distinguished themselves in battle as they have so often done before.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I felt I wished to detain the house for only a moment to signify my satisfaction with what is being done today.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I wish to follow the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) in a similar vein. There is a very special significance to the steps we are now taking to play our part in approving the arrangement made to bring Greece and Turkey into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Greece was the birthplace of western democracy. Greece has given to the world the greatest of its art and culture, which really laid the foundation for those stronger societies which grew up in Italy and other parts of Europe in the years that followed.

North Atlantic Treaty
I should think that at this time, when we are all hoping that the efforts that are being made may preserve peace and the freedom to pursue our own democratic way of life, it is particularly significant that Greece should be joined in this endeavour.
There is in addition to this the fact that the people of Greece have demonstrated their willingness to make great sacrifices in the cause to which we are now all committed. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) said this morning, the approval of this arrangement by the governments of all the nations joined in this organization would mean that an attack on either Greece or Turkey would immediately meet with the military response implicit in the North Atlantic treaty agreements. Greece has already within her own borders faced the communist beast. I think every one of us here can say with deep sincerity: Thank God they won. They overcame communist forces, trained, organized and supported from across their borders under the direction of Moscow. They have shown what free men can do against these evil forces. Therefore I think there should be in the heart and mind of each of us a feeling of gratitude and rejoicing that they will be associated with us in this supreme responsibility.
Glorious Greece, with a proud history of the past, now marching side by side with the western democracies, can have reason to hope for the glories which will come through the opportunities that are being opened to nations without great resources by the scientific achievements of the past few years, particularly through the peaceful employment of atomic power which may completely change the lives of many countries which have found things extremely difficult through inability to meet the requirements of modern industrial needs.
May I turn for a moment to Turkey, which country has been magnificent both in victory and in defeat. As has been said by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), all who have had occasion to meet them as enemies regarded them not only as men of great courage but also as men of chivalry and decent instincts which bring them in spirit within the community of the western world. After the first world war Turkey became the friend of the western democracies and since that time has marched side by side with the western nations in the effort to preserve the freedom of nations of different historical backgrounds and of different religious beliefs, but all sharing one common conviction, that it is only through freedom, that it is only through the preservation of self-government

against the threat of communism that we can hope to advance the welfare of the peoples of these countries.
Turkey has shown, as did Greece, a willingness to fight the threat with which we are all confronted in differing degrees. While Turkey did not actually find it necessary to engage in mortal combat with communist forces, as did Greece, nevertheless it was the firmness of Turkey and only that firmness that held back the Russian forces from her borders at the time the northern provinces of Turkey were threatened only a few years ago. Turkey has the distinction of being both a European and an Asiatic nation. On both sides of the Dardanelles it extends to and is in contact with Asia. To the west of the Dardanelles it extends to and is in contact with Europe. Above all, however, it is the buffer in the Mediterranean area between the threat of the physical forces of communist Russia and western civilization. They have already shown the mettle of which they are made. I think we all have reason for satisfaction and confidence when we know that Turkey will be closely associated with us in this common undertaking. I am sure we will assist in every way we can to build up the strength of that great eastern bulwark in the Mediterranean so they may have the physical means to make their courage a strong deterrent to any efforts that might be thought of in the Kremlin, to any idea of repeating the adventure which brought the western world into war with Russia nearly one hundred years ago.
We should not forget that the reason Britain and France fought in the Crimea was the threat to Turkey. I hope the men of the Kremlin will not forget that the western world came to Turkey's defence before and that under an agreement of this nature the men of the western world, in much larger numbers, will come to Turkey's defence if necessary and with greater speed than on that former occasion.
I feel sure that all hon. members agree with what was said by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) that uncertainty is the greatest encouragement to the possibility of war. There is every reason to believe that had there been such a firm undertaking as now exists between the nations of the north Atlantic community there would have been no war in 1914 or in 1939, and that millions of human beings who were slaughtered in those conflicts might have been spared to pursue the peaceful course of their lives. If there is above anything else one clear and shining lesson to be gained from those two wars it is that a clear understanding

that free nations will join to defend freedom is in itself the likeliest way to prevent the possibility of war at any time.
I do hope this may be only one step in a progressive incorporation within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization of those nations which share common ideals of freedom. It may well be that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization will be the only reality unless the United Nations ceases to conduct its meetings in terms of unreality. I continue to hope that the United Nations may fulfil the dreams of those who signed the charter at San Francisco in 1945. I do not believe, however, that anybody is placing the brutal facts before our eyes if they can feel confident that meetings which are used so largely for purposes of spreading communist propaganda and for throwing challenges to the western world in the terms that are used by Vishinsky and his associates can hope to fulfil the great purpose for which the organization was created.
Nothing I have said suggests that we should cease to hope, but I do think the time has come when it is necessary for all the signatories to the charter of the United Nations to remember that there is a provision therein for the exclusion of any nation which does not observe the undertakings of the charter. While that time may not yet have arrived, most certainly members of the United Nations should not let events proceed to a point where the United Nations loses the sanction of integrity and of clear purpose simply because of its unwillingness to face the reality of the Russian course.
May I pass from that to say that I would hope, no matter how brief it may be, we may have some comments from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), because he too had some part in the discussions related to this subject and, as has already been pointed out, the financial arrangements are part and parcel of our support of our partners in this great enterprise. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) is of course unable to make a direct report as he is now outside of the country.
Before I sit down I wish to refer briefly to one aspect of the problem which can never at any time be separated from the consideration of this subject. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization must depend for the success of its efforts to preserve peace upon the combined military power of the nations which are members of that organization. I do not think it would be in keeping with our responsibility to end this session without reference to the disturbing situation which
North Atlantic Treaty
was disclosed by the few meetings of the committee on defence expenditures. In the Financial Post of December 22 there is a chart which shows in a very clear way the difference between the commitments for defence requirements and the amount that has actually been spent from April, 1950 to the end of November, 1951.
I would commend to the consideration of every hon. member the graphic illustration of these figures which appears on the front page of the second section of the Financial Post of December 22. It will be seen that the amounts spent in relation to the commitments during that period are in most cases proportionately very small. Having said that, I wish to make it quite clear that I recognize that some considerable part of the amount represented by commitments will take some time to complete. Nevertheless, having regard to the fact that the chart covers a period from April of 1950 to November of 1951, and realizing that the expenditures represent for all practical purposes the amount completed, because payments are made upon delivery or very shortly afterwards, it would be wise to see what the situation is with respect to some of these things that are of such very great importance in the defence of Canada. In the case of aircraft the estimated value of the commitments over that extended period is $788,600,000, and the amount spent is $157 million. It should be recognized that the amount spent does not represent aircraft in service in a great many cases because much of that expenditure is for aircraft which have not yet been commissioned for active service.
I am not going to go through the whole chart because it is there to be seen and to be quickly understood, but I would point to the figures on small arms. Commitments for small arms, rifles and machine guns of different types, amount to $25,200,000 yet the amount spent is only $1,200,000. That indicates a very dangerous delay in those weapons which are the basic weapons of defence for our land forces. After all, it is frequently said that the infantry is still the queen of battle, and that in the end it is the infantry upon which we must rely. No matter how effective our air or other forces may be, it is the infantry which completes the task, and these are the basic and essential weapons of the infantry. We did not get very much detailed information in the committee on defence expenditures because we met so late in the session and only for a few meetings, because of the decision of the majority of the committee that we would not meet more often. Nevertheless, there is information which I think every hon. member of this

North Atlantic Treaty
house should bear in mind because when we talk of the effectiveness of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization we must not forget that its effectiveness to preserve peace will depend upon what we have in reality and not on what we simply have on order.
I would point out that in the statement tabled with the committee on defence expenditures on December 13 by the deputy minister of defence production we found, for instance, that in the case of small arms there is as yet no service rifle on order in any Canadian factory or government arsenal. May I repeat that. There is as yet no Canadian rifle on order, let alone in production, in any Canadian arsenal or factory. When I speak of a service rifle I am not, of course, speaking of the -22 calibre rifle or of the other rifles that are used for special purposes. I have before me the list, and it shows that the only rifles on order in Canada with any Canadian arsenal or factory are 1,176 -22 calibre rifles-which are only practice or target rifles or for use of that kind-and 4,440 survival weapons of -22 calibre which are for the use of aircrew or other military detachments who might find it necessary to live'on the country if they were separated from their ordinary sources of supply.
May I point out that there are no rifles on firm order from anyone else. I am talking now about service rifles with the meaning applied to that term that is understood by the Department of National Defence. A tentative order was placed with the United States government for 20,951 -30 calibre rifles, but that order has been suspended. In other words, at this stage of this great
Supplier
Sorel Industries Ltd. Sorel Industries Ltd. Sorel Industries Ltd.
crisis the Canadian government has not only no firm order for rifles for our infantry or other armed services-that is, of the hardhitting service pattern-but it has no orders placed in our own country for the manufacture of those rifles. In fact there is good reason to believe that the Canadian government has not yet made up its mind as to which calibre of rifle it is going to make.
That, I suggest, is a situation which should cause grave concern to every Canadian at a time when we are expecting the huge expenditures that we are approving to produce positive and real results in the form of armed and trained men ready to take their part in the defence of freedom. I can only repeat that it is the actual military strength we show that offers the one real hope of peace.
Then may I also point out that while orders have been placed with Canadian Arsenals Limited for Browning -5 machine guns, although these defence preparations have been under way for so long, and although the value of the commitments for those is $14,601,228, all that has been spent up to this month is $26,620. The very insignificance of that figure shows how little progress has been made in equipping our defence forces with machine guns of this type.
Then when we come to artillery weapons, which are the other major weapons of the land forces, I find in the same report, tabled on December 13, the only artillery weapons for which orders have been placed in Canada, either with any Canadian arsenal or with any private industry, are the following:
Estimated Expendi-
Item	Value	ture138	105mm. howitzers	$1,500,000	nil29	155mm. howitzers	650,000	nil180	155mm. howitzers	3,960,000	nil
I would not wish to pass through these statements without saying that certain artillery weapons have been ordered from the United States government in comparatively small amounts. For instance, I find that in the case of 59 4-2" mortars, ordered from the United States government at an estimated cost of $141,070, there is no indication of the amount spent; although I understand that in this case there may have been some expenditure because it was under a blanket payment to the United States government. It may well be that all those guns have actually been acquired.

I would remind the members of this house, Mr. Speaker, that we have constantly heard Canada described, in this house and elsewhere, as one of the great arsenals of democracy. If we are not preparing to be the arsenal for our own defence forces, we are not preparing very effectively to be the arsenal for the defence forces of other countries. As we accept these responsibilities, with the clear evidence that the people of Canada support the members of this house in the acceptance of these responsibilities, with our industrial skill, with the capacity that was demonstrated by the

workers and the technicians of this country to produce arms and military equipment during the last war, it is the duty of the members of this house to insist that we shall be producing the rifles, machine guns, artillery weapons and other things that we have made in the past and can make now as well as any other country in the world. This is so closely related to this whole problem that I hope that when we return for the next session there will be very positive evidence that the delay in facing this issue has changed to vigorous action, and that the tremendous productive skill and capacity of this country will be at work supplying our defence forces with the weapons and equipment they need.
I can only express the hope that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) in closing this debate will go somewhat further than he did when a question was asked earlier today. He was asked what position Canada had taken in the vote on December 22 in Paris when Greece, by a very narrow margin, became a member of the United Nations security council. We were told that those meetings are secret, and for that reason Canada's vote should not be disclosed. The governments of the member nations of the United Nations know how Canada voted. The fact is that I believe most of the members of this house know how Canada voted. After all, these things are discussed and should be discussed. I believe the members of this house have a right to know officially, as most of them know privately, and I believe the people of Canada have the right to know how Canada voted on this particular occasion. After all, it has been the subject of discussion in the press.
I would refer to a Canadian Press dispatch of December 20 from Paris which had this to say:
Greece narrowly won a seat today as eastern Europe's representative, in record-breaking balloting for a place on the United Nations security council.
Strong United States backing of Greece over Byelorussia was reported to have finally won over Britain and France to help break the deadlock.
Besides the temporary British-American split on the touchy issue, the commonwealth was divided on the question, informed sources said. Although the balloting was secret, these sources said Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Pakistan backed Byelorussia.
I grant that the government is not bound by a statement in a Canadian Press dispatch to the effect that informed sources said that Canada voted for the election of Byelorussia. But let us face reality. This Canadian Press dispatch was published right across Canada, and I am sure most Canadians accept that statement as being accurate. If it is not accurate let the minister say so. If it is
North Atlantic Treaty
accurate, then let him say so as well. The reasons for secrecy while the discussions and voting are taking place are obvious. There are difficulties enough in dealing with matters of this kind without the pressures which might perhaps be exerted if some of these discussions were not held in secret. I can see reasons for that secrecy up to the point when the vote is taken. But I believe that after the vote has been taken, a vote known to the government of every member of the United Nations, the members of this and other legislative bodies have the right to know how Canada did vote.
I have no hesitation in saying that I think it would be the strong opinion of the people of Canada that Canada should not have backed Byelorussia for election to the security council as against Greece, whom we now welcome as a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Temporizing of that kind was the thing that brought on the last world war. Temporizing has not stopped any dictator or military aggressor in the past. In 1940 and 1941, as well as the years that followed, we all said with deep conviction that never again if it was within our power would we see the word "appeasement" written in letters of blood across the face of the world. I, for one, am unable to see what it could be but appeasement to support the election of Byelorussia, which for all practical purposes is an integral part of Russia itself, and at a time when Greece, the birthplace of democracy, was about to be welcomed as a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I hope that in his reply, on this day when we welcome Greece into this fellowship, the minister will recognize that secrecy has no meaning now and that the members of this house are entitled to know where Canada stood, so they may express their opinion with knowledge as to what course they would hope Canada would follow in the future in regard to the inclusion of any countries which have demonstrated that they believe in aggression if they can get away with it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It remains for me to
close this discussion, and I suppose in a sense to end this session. In doing so I should like in the first place, on behalf of the government, to echo, though in less eloquent terms than those which have been used by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), the feeling that we must all have when we contemplate the

North Atlantic Treaty
acceptance by this house of a protocol which will add Greece and Turkey to our numbers in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Canada, Mr. Speaker, owes much to the glory that was Greece two thousand years ago, and owes much to the courage that is Greece today. Therefore we welcome the membership of Greece in this association as strengthening and deepening the ties which already unite our two countries.
As for Turkey, the Turks have shown, both with us and against us, that they are steady and do not panic, and that they do not frighten easily. These are qualities, Mr. Speaker, which will stand us all in good stead today, qualities I may add which I learned during the years 1915 and 1916 in the Mediterranean that Turkey possessed.
A good many points have been raised in the discussion of this resolution which went somewhat beyond the purpose of the resolution itself, as indeed it was desirable to do. They probably deserve a longer reply than I am able to give today. I know the house regrets-this was specifically mentioned by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) -that a discussion of this kind had to come in the closing hours of the session. All of us could have wished that this discussion- it is hardly a debate-had taken place earlier, and that there had been more time for questioning. I know hon. members will realize that it has not been the policy of this government, in matters of foreign affairs, to conceal anything from this house or from the country that could be told to the house or to the country. And if I do not go into all these matters in as much detail in the closing moments of this session as I would desire and the house would desire, I am sure it will be appreciated that it is owing to the circumstances in which we find ourselves at this moment. However, I would like to deal with some of the points that have been raised.
In the first place, I should like to comment on one or two of the observations made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). He spent some time on our armament program, and what he considered to be the inadequacies of the program and the progress that has been made in regard to it. I do not intend to go into that in any detail except to make one reference to rifles. It may be that our production of rifles in this country is not as great as any of us would desire; but it is also the case, Mr. Speaker-and I think this is well known to members of the house- that the Canadian government have been doing everything they can to bring about in the North Atlantic countries standardization of this weapon so that in an emergency we

would all be using the same rifle, something that is obviously desirable. I think it is fair to say that we have taken a very active part in attempting to standardize rifles, but so far that standardization has not met with agreement on the part of all the members of the council. I should think it would be obviously sensible not to begin the manufacture of a rifle in Canada which a few months from now might be not the rifle agreed upon as the one to be used by the North Atlantic powers. We must hope that agreement will be reached very shortly indeed. Possibly a good deal of progress may be made in this important matter as a result of the visit Mr. Churchill is going to make to Washington very shortly.
The leader of the opposition also said that this was a good time for me to tell the house -I have been asked this already today- how we voted in the recent elections to the security council of the United Nations at the general assembly in Paris. It is, I think, a desirable principle that voting in these elections to United Nations agencies should be kept secret. We do vote in secret. Delegations are not supposed to know how other delegations vote, and there seems to me to be a good reason for that. The leader of the opposition himself stated that otherwise countries might be subjected, especially the smaller countries, to intolerable pressure, and the independence which they desire to exercise as members of the United Nations might be prejudiced if voting became known in this way. But, as the leader of the opposition has said, the voting is now over. It took place some time ago, and this might be a good occasion to inform the house of the action we took. I think he said-and I hope I am quoting him correctly-that he understood it was already known in Paris how we voted. The report in the newspaper which he read indicates that at least some people in Paris or some people in Canada do not know how we voted because that report was inaccurate.
When the first ballot was taken at the elections to the security council in Paris the Canadian delegation voted for Greece, Mr. Speaker; and when the eighteenth ballot, I think the last, was taken, Canada voted for Greece.


Mr. Sinclair:: Drew is wrong as usual.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, even having regard to the source of that interjection, and remembering that there is a Hansard record, I do not intend to permit that to pass unchallenged. There was nothing wrong, and it was a most unjustified remark, because if the member had been paying any attention-


James Sinclair: I was.


George Alexander Drew: -he would have known that I was referring to a press report and to a common understanding which prompted an earlier question. And what I have already said will indicate that no one in the house welcomes more than I do this assurance as to the course Canada followed in this case.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Now, Mr. Speaker, if I may turn to the remarks of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) who asked me a good many questions, some of them very searching ones indeed:	The hon. member
expressed the hope, in commenting on the North Atlantic council meeting in Rome, that we would not have any further intermediate meetings of the council; that at the next meeting in Lisbon-and I think I am quoting his words-we would come out with something worth while. Well, I echo that hope, Mr. Speaker. I should like to mention, however, as indeed the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) mentioned, that it is sometimes desirable in matters of this kind not to act too quickly, but to act surely and to act right. Possibly the delays that may have taken place in the consideration of some of these vitally important matters may be well justified if at the next meeting, or at an early meeting of the North Atlantic council, we come to the right decision.
I would also like to point out that the North Atlantic council has already come out with something worth while. It will be a great mistake indeed if the impression is created that this organization has not a record of constructive achievement to its credit already. After all, this organization is not very old, I think something under two years. During that time its members have received and have confidence in the assurance of the collective support they will get from each other. They have drawn up plans to make that support effective, and they have made very considerable progress-though not as much progress as any one of them would like-in implementing those plans. We have an integrated force now for the defence of the Atlantic area, and we have a supreme command under a supreme commander-and he is supreme in more ways than one- General Eisenhower. I think by what we have already done in the North Atlantic organization a contribution has been made not only in Europe but in the whole world to peace and stability. This organization is not a failure and is not going to be a failure. It has had its disappointments, of course, but it has taken on one of the biggest collective jobs in history, and in two years it has made a real contribution to that job.
North Atlantic Treaty
I agree with the leader of the opposition and with other hon. members who have said that what we must do in pursuing our work with the North Atlantic organization is to remove uncertainty, to remove hesitation if possible, to leave no country in any doubt as to what will happen if that country contemplates or undertakes aggression. In emphasizing this point, and rightly so, the hon. member for Peel used the illustration of Korea, and asked what would have happened if there had been no uncertainty in Korea when the aggression began there a year and a half ago; and he said that it was the hesitation as to what might happen in Korea which probably brought about that aggression. That may or may not be true. The corollary to that statement surely is that hesitation is almost inevitable when one is weak. And in Korea the free nations were very weak indeed. In order not to have that kind of hesitation in Europe we must get strong; and we are getting stronger in the North Atlantic organization.
The hon. member for Peel went on to ask about the new commitments that we were undertaking in accepting this protocol, new commitments for Canada. I think he put it in this way, by saying that they were the most far-flung military commitments we have ever contemplated. That may be true; but I would point out-indeed, I think hon. members would agree with me-that the absence of commitments does not save us from involvement in war. History has shown that. Effective commitments, however, might make war impossible. And by adding to our commitments in the way which we are now doing, in theory at least, we are adopting a course which may make them unlikely ever to be discharged. In other words, these new commitments are commitments for peace. It is because of this that there is such unanimity in this house and indeed in the country in regard to these new commitments.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) in discussing this aspect of the question said that while he did not object to these new commitments, for the reasons I have indicated, the people of Canada should be aware of their implications. I agree entirely they should be aware of those implications; and when they are aware of them they will realize, as we do, that they are commitments to prevent war, to make war impossible. As such we all welcome them.
In so far as the new members of NATO are concerned-we hope that shortly they will become new members-the hon. member for Peel said this morning they should come in as partners. That is what the North Atlantic

North Atlantic Treaty
organization is. It is based upon partnership. Greece and Turkey will accept all the obligations as they will enjoy all the privileges of membership, and we are happy to have them with us in that capacity.
.The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), who is not now in his seat, indicated that inside the North Atlantic organization there may be growing up a sort of inner group of members who were dominating the organization, and he suggested that the organization was losing the basis of equality on which it was founded. I assure the house that that is not so. Naturally in any organization of this kind, any international organization which has as its members states so far apart in power and responsibility as the United States of America and Iceland, some members will have to accept greater responsibility than others, and- some members will exercise greater influence than others. That is obvious, and in the circumstances it is probably desirable. But around the conference table we are all equal, and no one attempts to dominate anybody else. In that respect I might say the North Atlantic council is in pleasant contrast to some other international committees which come to one's mind.
On other matters not so closely related to the protocol the hon. member for Peel was inclined to be constructively critical about what had been going on. He contrasted the willingness of the government to accept these new commitments in a new area in the Middle East-and it was to that I believe he was referring, if he did not actually say it-to our indifference or our coolness with respect to the meeting of commonwealth countries called not so long ago to discuss defence in the same general area. He felt there was some inconsistency between the two positions. I do not believe there was any inconsistency. We have been discussing this matter of the admission of Greece and Turkey for many months. We have -contemplated' alternative arrangements which did not seem suitable. We have come to the conclusion that this is the best way to effect the greatest defensive strength in our alliance. We have accepted them wholeheartedly.
But that does not necessarily mean that our military commitments as such will extend to that area in the same way that we have accepted such commitments in western Europe. It might well be-and I am not dogmatic -about this, because it is dangerous as well as unwise to be dogmatic in these matters-that the military commitments for that part of the North Atlantic treaty area- it is difficult to think of the eastern Mediterranean as the North Atlantic area-it might well be that the military commitments out

there and the military planning and the military arrangements there may not involve for Canada the same kind of participation or planning as is the case in western Europe.
Then the hon. member asked me if we were contemplating any further extensions of the North Atlantic organization. My answer to that is that so far as I know we are not contemplating any further extensions at this time. It is true in a sense that by extending the area of our commitments to the eastern Mediterranean we are getting away from the geographical concept of the North Atlantic pact. But, in the strict sense, the North Atlantic pact never was a regional scheme so much as it was a scheme for collective defence under article 51 of the United Nations charter.
There is no reason in theory, although there may be arguments against it in fact, why an association of this kind should not ask into its membership any member of the United Nations which wishes to accept the price of membership under article 51. I am not suggesting that this should be done, and I am not suggesting that what the hon. member for Peel called an encirclement of the globe by these collective security arrangements under article 51 will take place. But there is nothing to prevent it if in the future it is desired that it should be done in the interests of national security and in the interests of peace everywhere.
Then at the end of his speech the hon. member asked me four or five questions about the operations of NATO itself. He was curious about the Canadian relationship to what has been referred to as the T.C.C. report. He indicated on the basis of a press dispatch -and I am not quarrelling with him for this-that that report showed we had not met our commitments as a member of the North Atlantic organization.
I would like to -assure the house, Mr. Speaker, that no such interpretation of the T.C.C. report would be justified. I -can assure the house also that we are meeting our commitments under the North Atlantic pact, and that we will continue to do so. The T.C.C. report-I tried to explain it this morning, although possibly not sufficiently-was in the first instance a document drawn up by three of its members who were chosen by the twelve to be their executive committee. It was a report which went into the question of military requirements and the resources of the various -countries which could be devoted to meeting those requirements.
There was a military section of the report- a screening and costing study, it was called-

which went into the military plans to see if they were realistic, to see if those that had already been drawn up by the military committee of the North Atlantic council were realistic, whether they could be cut or whether there should be additions to them.
Having done that the report examined what was called the political and economic capabilities of the various members to see if those capabilities matched the military requirements. When this study was completed by the committee of three, after they had discussed the various national programs with the national representatives, their report, as a report of the small committee, was then sent to the full committee of twelve. We have now had an opportunity of examining that report at a meeting of the committee of twelve. It has been sent back to us for governmental consideration. After being considered by the governments there will be another committee meeting on January 15. At that time we have reason to hope and believe there will be a report for the North Atlantic council which will be unanimously agreed to by all the members.
Until that report is received and until some member of the council gets up and states that he is not able to accept it there can be no question of any member of the council being charged with inability or lack of desire to meet its commitments. That is the situation so far as Canada is concerned, and indeed so far as the other countries are concerned.
My hon. friend also asked me how many months behind schedule were the NATO military plans and whether there was likely to be a breakdown of those plans. Although I have not the time to go into the matter, I would say there has been no breakdown of NATO military plans and it is not realistic at the present time to talk about those plans being behind schedule. The plans are being changed continually by the military committees of the organization, and they may be changed further as a result of this T.C.C. report. In some respects the plans are being speeded up over the original plans and in other respects they are being extended. I am afraid that will be the situation for years ahead. They will be continually reviewed. At the present time no member country is satisfied with the progress that is being made, and I hope that we will continue to be impatient with that progress. But it is not accurate to say that there is any likelihood of any of these plans breaking down or any likelihood of the NATO organization breaking down in any respect.
North Atlantic Treaty
I should like to turn for a moment to the remarks of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). The hon. member was preoccupied with the lack of progress in the non-military aspect of co-operation, and was anxious to know what we were doing in regard to expediting and increasing that kind of co-operation between members. I did not say very much about that this morning but I can add a few words to what I said then. As the hon. member and house know, non-military co-operation under the North Atlantic pact has been one of the primary objectives of Canadian participation in the pact. We have never faltered in our desire to see article 2 implemented to the fullest possible extent. It was partly as a result of our initiative that a special council committee was set up last September to go into the whole question. That committee got to work in London in October and had a report for the Rome meeting in November. It was obvious that in the course of four or five weeks that committee could not make a very exhaustive report on the subject, but it has made a beginning and there will be a fuller report made to the Lisbon meeting.
One of the difficulties that confronts us when we go into this question of non-military co-operation is to make sure that in building up the co-operation which is desirable within NATO we do not prejudice the cooperation which exists between NATO countries and countries that are not members of NATO. We do not want to add another overlapping agency to a lot of other agencies. Also, some members are interested particularly in certain aspects of non-military co-operation that they desire to push, and other members have their own non-military interests. One or two of the countries in our committee for instance were particularly interested in using the NATO organization for migration purposes and the movement of labour. That is a subject of importance to all members, but it is one that cannot be settled in a week or a month or possibly a year.
Great interest has also been displayed in the possibility of improving political consultation among all members of NATO so that no one member of the organization would be confronted with an important political decision by another country without there having been an opportunity for consultation in the council itself. We are trying to work out ways and means by which that kind of consultation may be carried on almost continuously. This may require a reorganization of NATO itself. It may even require having the North Atlantic council

North Atlantic Treaty
in continuous session, just as the security council of the United Nations is in continuous session.
I want to assure you, however, that it will not mean that the foreign ministers will be in continuous session at the North Atlantic council and away from their homes. What it may mean is that the authority of the deputies who now constitute a subordinate body will have to be increased so we will have something like continuous sessions where the representatives present will have sufficient authority to take action on behalf of their governments. This again is a decision which cannot be reached easily or hurriedly by governments. In Rome we were certainly not at a point where we could all agree on that.
I mention these things merely to 'show that we are not neglecting the implementation of article 2. We are not unaware of the importance of forms of co-operation other than military.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) indicated in his interesting contribution to the discussion that he was worried to some extent because people in this country were not aware of the full implications of what we are doing. I agree that one of the important tasks ahead of the NATO organization is providing for public information. That was one of the subjects we discussed in the committee of five, and it is one to which we are giving a great deal of attention. As this international organization develops we do not want to give the impression that we are working behind the scenes. If we do not have public opinion behind us in this development we will not succeed. It seems to me to be the part of elementary wisdom that we let our people know everything we possibly can about what we are doing and what we are trying to do. I assure the house that that is very much in the mind of the Canadian government.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that this is all I oan say at this time in regard to this matter. However before I sit down perhaps I might say one word on the general situation as I found it in Europe after a visit of some weeks to the United Nations assembly, to the NATO council and a week or ten days in London. I would hesitate very much to toss off an ea: cathedra opinion on a subject of such transcendental importance as the peace of the world.


Mr. Fulion:: So long as you do not claim
infallibility, it will be all right.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I certainly do not claim
that. The impression I brought back-I think the same impression was also in the minds of others who came back with me, such as the

Secretary of State of the United States-was that there has been no deterioration in the situation over the last year. To put it at its lowest, the gap has not widened and we are holding our own. If you can get much comfort out of that, you are entitled to it. However, we will not continue to hold our own unless we build up, as we are trying to do, our collective strength. With all its disappointments and apparent setbacks, there can be no agency more effective for that purpose than the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. We are making that organization stronger, not only militarily-military strength has never provided a permanent foundation for peace-but also politically. We are building up an association of states who are willing to work together in peace and who, if they have to, will work and fight together in war. We are getting stronger and that strength has increased and will increase with the membership of Greece and Turkey in our organization. That strength is for defence alone, that strength is for negotiation. It is not for anything else no matter what the enemies of peace may say. We are putting power behind peace. We are doing that, however, in the knowledge that peace ultimately must rest on something greater even than power.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Right Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
In the Senate chamber, the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in His Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act to amend the Combines Investigation Act.
An act to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 1939.
An act to provide for privileges and immunities in respect of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
An act to amend the Public Works Act.
To these bills the royal assent was pronounced by the Clerk of the Senate in the following words:
In His Majesty's name the Right Honourable the Deputy Governor General doth assent to these bills.

[Stage Direction]
After which the Deputy Governor General was pleased to close the fifth session of the

twenty-first parliament of Canada with the following speech:
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
The people of Canada have been deeply gratified by the rapid and steady recovery of the King's health. The transcontinental tour of Their Royal Highnesses The Princess Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh was the occasion for a universal and heartfelt manifestation of the attachment of the Canadian people to the crown and the royal family.
Throughout the session, my ministers have continued to give constant attention to the policy of seeking the security of our country in co-operation with other peace-loving peoples through the establishment of real and lasting peace.
To resist aggression there and to discourage aggression elsewhere, armed forces of our country, combined with the United Nations' contingents from other countries, are performing their duties in Korea with valour and distinction. Meanwhile, negotiations to bring about a cease-fire have been undertaken and are continuing.
Elements of the army and air force have been dispatched to Europe to form part of the integrated force under the command of General Eisenhower.
In furtherance of our international policies, certain of my ministers have been absent from Canada for sessions of the general assembly and other organs of the United Nations, for meetings of the council and other organs of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; and for the negotiation of a Pacific fisheries treaty with the United States and Japan.
You have approved a protocol which provides for the extending of an invitation to Greece and Turkey to join the North Atlantic alliance.
You have enacted legislation to implement agreements between the parties to the North Atlantic treaty regarding the status of their forces. You also enacted a measure respecting the Canadian forces.
The Pension Act has been amended to provide for substantial increases in the rates of pension for disabled veterans and widows of veterans and for their dependents.
In response to the main purpose for which you were summoned to the present session, you have enacted a measure to provide for the payment, from January 1, 1952, of pensions as a matter of right and without a means test to all Canadians with appropriate residence qualifications who have attained the age of seventy years.
You have given your approval to a measure to prohibit persons engaged in manufacturing, buying or selling articles or commodities from fixing specific or minimum resale prices.
Prorogation of Parliament
You have authorized the creation of a corporation to be known as the St. Lawrence seaway authority for the purpose of constructing, operating and maintaining, either alone or in co-operation with the United States, a deep waterway between Montreal and lake Erie.
You have also approved an agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the province of Ontario with respect to the development by Ontario, concurrently with an appropriate authority in the United States, of hydroelectric power in the international rapids section of the St. Lawrence river.
The Railway Act, the Canadian National-Cana-dian Pacific Act and the Maritime Freight Rates Act have been amended in general conformity with the recommendations of the royal commission on transportation.
You have made legislative provision for a limited guarantee of short-term bank credit to grain producers in the prairie provinces, in order to meet temporary financial difficulties resulting from inclement weather during the harvest season.
You have passed legislation embodying recommendations of the royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences with respect to radio broadcasting. You have also revised the legislation respecting the national gallery of Canada along the lines of the recommendations of the commission. My government is continuing to give careful consideration to other recommendations in the commission's report.
You enacted measures respecting the agricultural products board, Canada lands surveys, the revised statutes of Canada and the international convention for the regulation of whaling.
Amendments have been made to the Dominion Elections Act; the Judges Act, 1946; the Exchequer Court Act; the Supreme Court Act; the Public Printing and Stationery Act; the Bills of Exchange Act; the Canada-United States of America Tax Convention Acts of 1943 and 1944; the Civil Service Act; the Toronto Harbour Commissioners Act; and the North Fraser Harbour Commissioners Act.
You enacted a measure providing for the financial administration of the government of Canada, the audit of the public accounts and the financial control of crown corporations.
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
May Divine Providence continue its blessings upon our nation and upon the efforts of peace-loving peoples to establish the rule of law in the relations between nations.
This concluded the fifth session of the twenty-first parliament.